Everyone should be able to do research, not just $cientists from unis. Science shouldn't be gatekeeped and censored.

Where does it say that's happening?

Every time someone tells our friend here that his opinions are not equal to everyone else's facts. "Why do only scientists get to do research?" is the clarion call of every anti-vax dickhead who ever swallowed horse dewormer.

"is the clarion call of every anti-vax dickhead who ever swallowed horse dewormer."

Is the horse dewomer in the form of a red pill?

There are many problems with Ivermectin. That it's also given to horses is not one.

I realize that "a probably ineffective medication" doesn't have the same zing to it, but come the hell on.

What do you think is happening, exactly? And what's your issue with how it's done at the moment, where you're entirely free to do research if you want to?

You get on with it then, best of British mate!

Huh? Why would you say that? There's nothing preventing anyone from doing research, as long as you can get someone to fund it. Private research is being done all the time. In many fields it's even better funded than universities.

Now, crank bullshit snake-oil research often has problems getting funded, but nobody is actively stopping it. It's just basic economics, not censorship.

Getting hold of research papers is expensive for those without academic access.

OK, it is better than it used to be, but still...

Also, try getting published without the right 'credentials'.

This doesn't have to be about cranks.

Why do British universities think they're still entitled to EU funding?

English entitlement redux

(anonymous, because I work for one)

I was under the impression that post Brexit Britain would be able to forge ahead, finding it's own partners for it's endeavours without input or meddling from Europe.

It is very complicated though, perhaps I just don't understand enough.

finding it's own partners for it's endeavours without input or meddling from Europe.

And it wants to partner with other countries, some of whom are in the EU, on scientific R&D. That's what Horizon does.

perhaps I just don't understand enough

Or perhaps haven't read enough about it before adding an anti-Brexit knee-jerk comment??

@Cris G

Yes I would agree with you.

Could it be you feel the big bad EU has forced Britain to take part in all those meddling endeavours.

The thing is that we are bigger together in Europe and it's not just about money but about people and resources too.

And there are lots of people on both side of the Channel who hope the cooperation should continue regardless of Brexit.

Some Brits have this tendency of proudly claiming they are the fifth greatest in the world, probably not true, but regardless, if you add up the 1 to 4 countries then Britain is just above 5% of that sum. The five pence you would not care to pick up in a urinal.

Some get it some don't.

For those who would like to know a bit more there are comments about Horizon in this UK in a Changing Europe article: [1]Health and Brexit in the UK: two years on . TL;DR: the UK's pissing about with politics is the source of the problems. Of course anyone (except a brexit voter) could have told you this, but it does provide evidence to support its arguments. Not that this would change any brexiter's mind -- we already know they don't respond to facts.

Alas the only solution to these problems is to leave it a few years waiting for the oldest of them to die off. They refuse to accept they were and remain wrong, so our shit situation will persist until their numbers are depleted. Very sad. :-(

[1] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/health-brexit/

"Some Brits have this tendency of proudly claiming they are the fifth greatest in the world,"

Fifth greatest? Our problem is our Glorious Leader claiming us to be the greatest, not fifth greatest, at all sorts of things about which he hasn't a clue.

They don't. But they did expect that the Brexit process would include renegotiation so that they would have "external partner" access on some level, dependent on a UK contribution.

Brexit didn't "get done". All too much of it just got swept under the carpet by Boris and his chums. We're going to spend the next 40 years picking the broken glass out of our feet.

Brexit is a process, not a moment. We've only just started the process.

Brexit isn't the destination. Real brexit is the friends we made along the way

We are all in the Brexit but some of us are looking at the Horizon.

Sensible people would have started the process from the moment it was clear Britain was leaving. Which was over half a decade ago.

"Brexit is a process,"

It may have been a process but it's already been done. Boris did it. Surely he wouldn't be fibbing about that, would he?

Why do British universities think they're still entitled to EU funding?

No one has mentioned entitlement (nor Universities for that matter).

The European Commission's Horizon fund is a global fund to encourage research worldwide. It is open to " researchers and innovators from around the globe who are encouraged to team up with EU partners ", and " not only to EU neighbouring countries, but also to any country in the world with a strong research and innovation capacity that share common values ". " The United Kingdom will be associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. " (all quotes taken directly from the Horizon website).

No entitlement, just international agreement in co-operative research, as science should be done. In the past the UK was a member, now it's an associate. Or would be if the EU would stop using the NI protocol and the fishing dispute to keep holding the UK's feet to the fire to block the agreement.

Fishing and NI protocols are also part of the TCA.

We can't rip up 250-odd pages out in the TCA because they're "overly legalistic" and "heavy-handed", hold up a few remaining sheets with Horizon written on them, and then get stroppy and say "Johnny EUers just aren't keeping their side of the bargain".

It would be immensely arrogant and hypocritical to do that... which they are doing.

Read that as, "Fisting and NI protocols" Sorry.

We can't rip up 250-odd pages out in the TCA because they're "overly legalistic" and "heavy-handed", hold up a few remaining sheets with Horizon written on them, and then get stroppy and say "Johnny EUers just aren't keeping their side of the bargain".

No one has suggested that. The UK has fully followed the agreed fishing rules, even helping EU trawlers that had problems proving their previous location in UK waters, by releasing data from UK fisheries vessels. The problem is that some French boats are still unable to provide the proof that was agreed in the TCA but France is demanding that the UK grant them licences anyway.

As for the NI protocol, it was intended to ensure that intra-UK traffic between GB and N could flow smoothly, as could traffic between NI and RoI, but that there would be no abuse of this as a back door to send goods GB->NI->RoI and on into the wider EU. The number of products affected was expected to be small, not least because wholesale smuggling on that route would be pretty obvious (how many containers could you send from GB to France via Ireland before someone noticed?). Unfortunately the EU officials have chosen to apply more zealous checking on that tiny border than on any other external EU border. There are stories of refrigerated lorries being made to unload to verify paperwork (thus breaking the cold chain & making the contents undeliverable) and of own-brand supermarket goods being blocked from GB->NI shipment even though they could never end up in the RoI because the supermarket has no branches there.

EU officials, especially the French, are past masters at using excessive bureaucracy to make life difficult while still respecting the letter of the law, and it is clear that this is happening. If threatening to invoke Article 16 (which is not "ripping it up" but using an option in the agreement) is the only way to get the EU to play fair then why should it not be used?

The problem is that some French boats are still unable to provide the proof that was agreed in the TCA but France is demanding that the UK grant them licences anyway.

Nowhere in the agreement does it say that Jersey (aided and abetted by the UK) have to demand a record of GPS co-ordinates between 2012 and 2016 from applicants and not accept any other kind of proof ( [1]P913 in the PDF, P926 in the footer, article 2.1 ). Small fishing boats don't keep those kind of records and there are other ways to prove they've fished in waters. It's funny how they're being really strict over this and want the exact opposite over the NI protocol.

France is demanding that the UK grant them licences anyway.

This is being sold as it's just being France being France and it's only France kicking up a fuss, but basic geography would tell you why there are only problems with France.

If threatening to invoke Article 16 (which is not "ripping it up" but using an option in the agreement) is the only way to get the EU to play fair then why should it not be used?

The EU is playing fair, it's sticking to the agreement. By itself A16 does nothing more than start off another legal wrangle, it's not the panacea for the UK to demolish the doors into the single market and claim their sovereign right to trade.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22020A1231(01)

"if the EU would stop using the NI protocol and the fishing dispute"

Total rubbish Phil O'Sophical.

It's the British who suddenly want to change the agreement signed by the British government.

It's the British who suddenly want to change the agreement signed by the British government.

No, they just want the EU to respect it, instead of deliberately making it as difficult to use as possible. It should be a win-win for the UK and the EU, but the EU is not interested in fair play.

> Total rubbish

Sadly not. In general lines he's got it right, unfortunately.

I'm looking at it from the French (and EU) side, and it's pretty clear that, to put it in a nutshell, we're all being held hostage by a small fishing town in Brittany.

Not saying that the UK side were not useless too, but it was evident that it was not going to end well when the EU named Barnier as their representative, a French ultranationalist and a bit of a Eurosceptic himself.

All very sad, really, being at the mercy of a handful of extremists. :(

The N Ireland situation was always going to be a problem.

It's very simple to state: the Good Friday agreement was predicated in N Ireland being in the EU (or possibly the Republic being out of it) so as to avoid a hard border. The UK is the United Kingdom or Great Britain and Northern Ireland is predicated in N Ireland. Having the UK out of the EU, NI being in it and NI also being in the UK is a logical contradiction.

The Protocol was the Brexiteers' fiction to try to pretend there wasn't a problem It would never stand up to reality. And let's not beat about the bush - it was the direct and unavoidable consequence of Brexit.

It's going to continue to be a problem unless the UK gets broken up and that would be an even bigger problem.

@Doctor Syntax

"The Protocol was the Brexiteers' fiction to try to pretend there wasn't a problem It would never stand up to reality."

Eh? In what universe was it the Brexiteers? The brexiteers wernt making the progress May wanted because the Brexiteers didnt agree to screwing the UK over. The protocol came after when May made progress (attempted BINO).

"And let's not beat about the bush - it was the direct and unavoidable consequence of Brexit"

Its entirely avoidable. The border isnt specified in the agreement, the Irish border already exists. Solved. It would cause huge problems for the EU but thats not the UK's concern.

"It's going to continue to be a problem unless the UK gets broken up and that would be an even bigger problem."

Why is the remain solution always to drop trow and grab ankles? Why must the UK be broken up for the EU incompetence to solve its porous border problem?

Why must the UK be broken up for the EU incompetence to solve its porous border problem?

The border would not ordinarily be porous were it not for the special circumstances on the island of Ireland. The CTA was originally set up in 1925, then Ireland followed the UK into the EFTA in 1960, and then it followed the UK into the EEC in 1973.

Ireland is obviously not going to follow the UK out of the EU as above 90% of the population want to stay in the EU. Brexit should have taken into account how all of the UK territory was going to leave the EU while allowing the UK to uphold its side of the GFA, but obviously as it was an invention by half-witted loons who couldn't even decide what form Brexit could take without arguing about it, we are at this juncture.

They couldn't even decide to stay in the same SPS area as the rest of the European continent from Iceland, the Azores, and the Canary Islands to the Ukraine/Belarus/Turkey border - apparently the loons believe more difficult trade is freer trade. This is why upholding the GFA is needlessly more difficult than it should be and why the instigators of Brexit have no idea how to do it unless they pretend the problem doesn't really exist. The EU aren't willing to pretend the problem doesn't exist as it is a legal agreement between 27 countries + EFTA countries + EEA countries and pretending the problem doesn't exist would undermine it.

If I understood this correctly (and I may be wrong as there has been so much gibberish), EU research funding was going to be replaced with UK funding from Central Government.

Now I am guessing that what is happening is:

The UK Government has not provided the funding is said it would.

Collaborative research was not covered by this.

Researchers are running out of projects and money.

For research teams to be viable they need a pipeline of funding and research, otherwise staff will just do other things.

The UK has always been really duff when it comes to research funding, relying on industry, charities or the EU to provide the bulk of the money.

It just does not fit with the instant results culture that we have.

So, are we to be led to believe that UK scientists cannot apply for R&D funding from a realistic multi-billion pound kitty, which presumably would be vital for any top secret and/or sensitive research in development to the premium primary benefit delivering a leading advantage to the UKGBNI, irrespective of any foreign partnership in other programs/projects, because the UK government does not supply such a kitty ‽ .

He said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put down £5bn to fund local programmes if the UK were placed outside Horizon.

That sounds far too much like a booby prize compensation package figure and inglorious redundancy payment for scientists denied essential national security support to be anything different.

No wonder hi tech travels rapidly Eastwards and out of old fashioned democratic Western reach and influence.

What seems to have happened is that budgeted research money, or what there was of it, was given to various Tory chums who promised, but never delivered, COVID test and protective equipment and seem to have simply pocketed the dosh. Everything after that looks like doing anything they can to avoid charging said chums with fraud and to hell with science: far too many MPs don't feel any need understand science and engineering because all their degrees are in arts and politics and, you know, technical subjects are HARD.

... far too many MPs don't feel any need understand science and engineering ...

Nor end-to-end-encryption; see el Reg's recent [1]Privacy is for paedos article.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/20/no_place_hide_campaign_anti_e2ee_ukgov/

Since I first began to follow politics as a kid in the sixties, the UK Goverment, at least as far as scientific research is concerned, has never put it's money where its mouth is.

Successive governments since the war have talked loudly about British science excellence, waved vague promises around and then forgot all about it.

Look up 'The brain drain' from previous decades.

It just does not fit with the instant results culture that we have.

Instant results and not paying a single penny if it can be spent on chums instead. And if we pay money then it's got to be for proper tangible things like property.

Property in the Cayman Isles.....

No. Preferably in southern UK rural areas. And looking at Tory voter polling preferably where there are no foreigners. Ownership will be registered in the Cayman Isles, but the property will be here. After all, if brexit had been about brexiters moving to the Cayman Isles we wouldn't have a problem.

REAL Brexiteers (not their dupes) moved to Monaco.

[Note not the G. Freeman mentioned in the article]

Yes, that's what's happened.

Back in the day, got EU funding to work at CERN on particle physics.

Then Brexit, plodded on until money ran out, wrote up research. Applied for UK funding to carry on- they hadn't set anything up yet, six months after we left.

As not in EU, can't apply for co-funding with EU projects, so most people moved away.

Then Plague happened, everything now Plague related funded apparently, if not just ignored (sent funding application May'20, still waiting for acknowledgement).

Also, CERN still working out things regarding visiting UK people- if working for CERN directly OK, but no word yet about collaborating staff.

I don't think CERN is in the UK, so it doesn't matter. And worse, sometimes those people at CERN don't even speak English. You don't want to bother with that sort. Bloody foreigners.

What's wrong with good ol' British research? Pounds and ounces, feet and inches, and good ol' British pints.

[And in case you can't tell -- this is a piss take.]

The main problem that the UK Government currently has is an enormous cash crunch. Brexit and Covid have severely dented tax receipts and that is not offset by the new post-Brexit import duties. Economic growth and recovery are relatively poor but inflation is high so just "turning on the printing presses" to create more sterling is not option.

The [1]ONS has the UK debt/GDP ratio at over 100% and borrowing at 15.3% of GDP . The [2]OECD has the UK’s debt at almost 150% of GDP, sandwiched between Spain and Portugal . The UK [3]lost its triple A credit rating in 2016 and is now at AA (though the outlook has fortunately recently been upgraded from negative to stable). Using the capital markets to raise more cash is therefore a bit harder than it used to. To quote the former governor of the Bank of England, the UK is heavily "reliant on the kindness of strangers". Hence also the new efforts to get the British public to lend to the Government in the form of 'Premium Bonds'.

You can see this challenge reflected at policy level. The regions, who were promised that the regional development money that they used to receive from Brussels would be replaced by money from Westminster, have had to accept cuts of up to 90%. Farming subsidies are going to be far smaller than under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. The 'Levelling Up' ambition has seen most of its money cut so is struggling to transition from slogan to policy. The Government can’t afford to help families with their high energy bills and can only loan money towards energy costs, not subsidise.

The CBI has warned that [4]the UK is walking into a trap of a low growth, high tax economy that will lead to a lost decade of prosperity.

You can see how serious the situation in that Rishi Sunak has had to break a manifesto pledge and raise taxes in the form of a NI hike (quite a regressive move that will hurt the lower paid the most). This will come into effect right in the peak of the cost of living crisis. Considering Sunak is getting ready to replace Boris Johnson this is politically very dangerous stuff and a sign that he is with his back against the wall.

In short, there is no money and it’s politically not very good timing to give much to universities and science.

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021

[2] https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm

[3] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/rating

[4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-pushing-britain-into-lost-decade-of-low-growth-says-cbi-director-general-tony-danker-30qz362lj

They could think the unthinkable and increase wealth taxes.

They could think the unthinkable and increase wealth taxes.

That never works. The old Labour dogma that there are two categories of people, "the workers" and "the rich", are long gone. Most of the real wealth in the UK is in the hands of the middle classes, who already pay most of the tax (and will vote against anything that resembles a wealth tax, look what happened to Theresa May).

On the other hand people might be reminded of where their jabs came from and think that was good value for money compared with e.g. the PPE procurement shenanigans!

Welcome to the real world, where you don't get stuff if you don't honour the contracts you signed.

Maybe it might penetrate the thick skill of the science minister, that if you keep picking fights with people they become uninterested in cooperating with you. And all those jingoistic newspaper headlines come at a real cost.

Agreed, I suspect that is what is happening here. There is, of course, a formal level with criteria and applications. Underneath that there is a less formal level where you can stall reviewing formal applications or interpret certain criteria in a favourable/unfavourable way etc. Goodwill helps a lot.

It appears that informal level is where [1]stuff is currently happening in Northern Ireland where the government is effectively sabotaging the operation of the Boris Border instead of using the formal process. The UK government can act slowly to get the NI government in line and honour international law whilst simultaneously claiming that they haven't triggered Article 16 so economic sanctions can't come into force.

The people who work on this for the European Commission weren't born yesterday and will have experience dealing with unreliable regimes. I suspect they are awaiting a resolution in Northern Ireland before they remember where they left the goodwill.

[1] https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2022/0205/1277880-tony-connelly-brexit/

Indeed, the European Commission, the most politically aware organisation in the world as it has to understand how to walk through 27 (and more) different forests.