The Russell Group founded in 1994, represents 24 universities that are research intensive, and are responsible for world-leading research. They have been long associated with representing the top universities in the UK, and in the world. Recently Brexit has been creating an issue, and is creating an uncertainty between Europe and the UK, and as to whether research funding will be nullified. Russell Group has recommended that science and research should be a priority in the talks that are taking place between the UK and the EU. It is vital that close relationships with members across the EU be maintained, in order to continue the progress that is being made as a result of the funding that is given. Dr Tim Bradshaw, the Acting Director of the Russell Group, stated that he wanted the rights of EU students and staff to be guaranteed after Brexit. This was due to the vast number of EU members that are vital to the universities, and the fact that nearly half of all UK academic articles are a result of international collaboration.
An example of where UK universities are benefiting of the EU funding is the Horizon 2020 research fund. This fund is bringing in more than £2bn into the higher education sector, and estimated to rise even further. If the UK suffers from a hard brexit, there is a strong chance that these types of EU funding could be put on hold, which can seriously impact the progress of research. Oxford University is one of the beneficiaries of EU funding, receiving almost £66m in the years 2014 and 2015, and thrives off this funding. Implications of Brexit could be so concerning, that Oxford is considering opening a campus in France in order to continue receiving EU funding.
In terms of the manifesto pledges, Labour have pledged to ensure that the UK maintains its leading research role it has by allowing Horizon 2020 funding to continue; the party wants to ensure that the UK maintains membership that is the equivalent to European organisations. The Conservative party remains ambiguous, implying that it will collaborate in science and innovation with EU member states. There is little doubt that this area is incredibly important, and the party that offers the most support on this issue will no doubt gain many votes.
Drug tests are the most important stage in the development of a drug; determining the safety and effects of a particular medicine, which is waiting to be prescribed to patients with potential life threatening diseases. It is morally, deemed ethical to drug test on willing volunteers, rather than unaware animals, but due to Brexit 600,000 clinical trials on patients, may no longer be available. The simple fact is it’s cheaper and also easier to follow one set of European regulations, in order to drug test throughout the whole of Europe. In this case, leaving the European union has left us in an unstable position of medical deficiency.
Beth Thompson, is a senior policy advisor, who suggested that our lack of luck regarding the new
EU regulations which will be missing out on, will cause patients with life threatening illnesses to miss out on new treatment opportunities. The regulations for clinical trials is hoped to streamline throughout all the 28 countries within the European Union, allowing each country to have the same application process, making trails easier and more efficient. Therefore, unless the UK improves its system of clinical trials, to mirror the strategy implemented in the EU, decline in clinical trials may occur. Ms Thompson continued to say; “The risk is definitely there that when the UK leaves the EU, and with it leaves that harmonised framework, that I will reduce the number of trails that happen in the UK”. It is uncertain if the EU will come to some sort agreement with the UK, as a bad image has already spawned, through the separation in unity.
Cancer is a rapidly developing disease with over 100 types of different cancers, special medication needs to be analytically focused upon to fight each separate cancer type and effectively help to destroy each cell, to prevent mutations. However, if clinical trials slow down then there will be a longer waiting period for new medications to be patented with time being invaluable, especially as cells can multiply at a rapid rate, ultimately reducing the survival rate for all diseases.
It seems as though the EU will rise in terms of medical advancements, countries like the US and Japan, with fall on the same plate as the UK. Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary commented we could be at “the back of the queue”, regarding the two countries previously mentioned. Disease’s which are more common in the UK, in contrast to other countries, will sacrifice their willing patients who could volunteer more easily to undergo trials. Clinical trials, have benefited those with uncommon diseases, who can be tested upon, develop new medicines and stop the disease before it becomes a common threat and most importantly save lives. The head of the UK medical regulatory body of the mhra, Ian Hudson, mentioned, “as part of exit negotiations we will discuss with the European union and Member states how best to continue cooperation in the field of medical trials”.
For research to be undergone, it is accompanied by lengthy planning which is important in order to make sure the drug is safe, for further tests to be undergone, especially on human volunteers. The head of the cancer research, Paul Workman, highlighted; “Any regulatory barriers to working collaboratively with colleagues in the EU would limit our opportunities to take part in and lead these trails, which would have an impact on both research and patients”. Also, “The outcome of Brexit negotiations must ensure the UK remains competitive in a very tough environment”. The likelihood of this happening is particularly slim, as the EU has an economic edge, allowing them to stay away from making further negotiations with the UK; however times like these with portray the EU’s moral stance.
David Davis, who is the former Brexit secretary, produced alongside the government, the ‘white paper’, which is a document outlining the 12 main criteria for Brexit. Consisting of 75 pages, it shows how we will be leaving the single market, the European court of Justice and the customs union, also outlining how insignificant immigration change will be. Davis, commented by illustrating, “best days are still to come”, for the UK, whilst labour believe the document “says nothing” and lacks value as the votes have already been counted, whether or not Britain change their mind.
Plans for immigration, are yet to be justified, as the document entails that; "implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex and Parliament will have an important role in considering these matters further”. Furthermore, a system needs to be devised to show what will happen to current EU nationals living in the UK. Businesses will play an essential part in the UK economy, being carefully prioritised to make sure, skilled workers are welcomed into the jobs sector. "This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements”. Such arrangements may involve, limiting international trade or cutting back on expenses. The government will be tackling a social issue regarding how vastly immigration will be controlled, on whether to economically satisfy business and the economy or prioritise the people, delivering on their expectancy of adequate action. Therefore, it has been confirmed that it will take several years until we see any effects on immigration patterns. On the other hand, the government is slowly piecing together a plan, focusing on foreign students, as tuition fees accumulate a fair amount of revenue for the country.
A major selling point for Brexit was saving the expense of £350 million on the cost of remaining in the EU, which was thought to have transitioned into helping the NHS. As a result, it seems as though “appropriate contributions”, will still be funded to Brussels, Europol, scientific and research departments and the European security arrangements. Europol correlates alongside the European arrest warrant, which generates a problem for May, due to the fact many MP’s despise of it. All in all this results in payments continuing to be sent to the EU, until further notice. Not to mention exiting the EU may cost us up to £51.5 billion, it seems as though we’ve let down the National Health Service.
Ever since 1923, there has been a common travel area (cta) between Ireland and Britain. However, an unresolved issue on the borders of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland remains, leaving the customs Union does not help resolve the problem anymore. The white paper lacks purpose to suggest what will happen, being unprepared, a suggestion of moving the UK border to the Irish Sea seems to be too controversial. “When the UK leaves the EU we aim to have as seamless and frictionless a border as possible between Northern Ireland and Ireland”, not convincing or reassuring to many residences.
Leaving the single market, seems far from close, as: trade, security and custom arrangements all seem to remain the same in the white papers; "may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when the UK and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years”. This clearly displays the fact little progress is being made to thoroughly shift ourselves away from the EU, displaying signs that Britain may not be as much of an independent country as it thought to be. Even our trade schedules, which are trade relationships, have just been in the EU and are continuing that way.
A startling proposition coincided with Trump’s recommendation insisting, Nigel Farage as Britain’s, US ambassador, following through to Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy (prime minister's joint chief of state), travelling to New York and Washington in December, with a desideratum of meeting Trump’s advisers. 10 Downing Street, instated a confirmation that May will be meeting Trump during the spring, through a spokesman commenting by conjecturing, “This was part of a process leading towards the PM’s first visit with President-elect Trump next year”. Subsequent to further negotiations No 10 proclaimed, “During the second phone call with President-elect Trump, the prime minister suggested it would be a good idea for key staff from both teams to meet. “President-elect Trump agreed this will be useful. We are pleased to have been able to make that happen and the Prime minister looks forward to visiting the new president in the spring”. It seems as though Mr Farage has been evicted out of the picture, this is supposedly due to the fact May had been forbidden by ministers, from using Farage as a middle man to her advantage for the sole purpose of improving relations. Downing Street cemented this claim by stating that the government is already prepared and has “well established” connections with the United States. Nevertheless, Trump did affirm that “Many people would like to see Nigel Farage represent Great Britain as their ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!” In response to this comment Nigel acknowledged how he was “very flattered”, by Trump’s compelling feedback.
In Interest to espouse the current ambassador, Mr Kim, Downing Street liberated a statement, promulgating “you have an ambassador who only took up his post earlier this year. He is doing a great job”. Without hesitation Mr Kim kept lights away and met with Ms May to consolidate that his job was indeed safe with him, having no intentions of replacing him with Farage. Mr Kim wrote to the Washington Post that, “Brexit and the election of president-elect Trump captured the mood and will of the electorate. Now is the time move forward together and embrace the opportunities ahead”. Later on addressing Brexit and president-elect Trump both being “fundamentally different issues”, being reinforced from the expression by voters.
A tenacious consanguinity is anticipated to be fabricated between Trump and May, as number 10 said, “They will work together closely, building on a legacy of previous leaders such as President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher”. Similar relations were hoped by Mr Kim, who said Britain and the United states would clasp “ever more closely on trade and security”, to justify the fact, Britain “remains America’s closest partner on defense”. In addition he quoted, “There is much the United States and Britain should, and will, tackle together as they have for 200 years. For decades, our partnership has been the cornerstone of the world order. So we, as an alliance, will continue to be strong”.
Withal, Farage has confirmed that he will be attending Trump’s inauguration later this month, claiming that “he can’t wait” to attend, unsurprising, as they have been close acquaintance’s with the most important time for Trump arriving, the marking of his presidency on the 20th January.
"Brexit", is either honoured or hated, in society's eye's. "Br" comes from "Britain" and "Exit", put together to make Britain Exit (the European Union). A historical vote commenced on Thursday 23rd June 2016, marking the future for the United Kingdom. In the past, links with Europe have been a vital asset in order to: Trade, make commissions and create significant influence in the world.
The majority of predictions implied staying would be the tendering result, people believed many reasons this was the best option. 3.5 million jobs in Britain have a connection with the EU, which are a driving factor for the UK economy and market. In other words that is 1/10 of every job having a relation to the EU. Trading is very important, the EU buys 50% of trade from Britain, that being said, (54% is goods and 40% services). Negotiating trade deals separately with countries outside Europe, can be frustrating and unmanageable to a certain extent. However this has proven to be questionable, as negotiations with America have already started uprising, with markets and the pound increasing from Trump's presidency. Also trade deals with India have already started, will Brexit help Britain on a more International level? European holidays are a more common and cheaper option for many UK residents, who enjoy common visits to: Spain, France, Portugal, Ibiza and Italy. The simple fact is that costs are lower by staying: credit card fees, flights, data roaming and compensation abroad. With the economy as it as, people can barely afford to go on holiday, yet pay a higher price for leaving. With epidemics such as; Ebola and Aids/HIV spreading, research is a vital part to help fight an infectious disease. The UK is seen to be the largest beneficiary of EU research funds, being a vital income for research universities and companies. Could this morally atone our efforts for improving health ?
Despite all this, On 23rd June 2016, Britain made a startling decision to leave the European Union, in hopes of an independent country. Many factors were illustrated in the pros and cons of leaving and staying, but with a 52:48 win on leaving, the pros of leaving, were seen to be highly favored upon.
Why did we end up leaving? Well, although there were many good reasons to stay there were also numerous reasons to leave. As mentioned before stronger deals have already been made with America and India, which are two completely different nations with strong economies. Providing more control over the UK's decisions was important in people's opinion, due to the fact it is their country and they should chose the way they run their country. Immigration has been a controversial problem recently, with ISIS and other extremist groups; countries feel the need to control their borders and who enters them. Although jobs may be lost by leaving the EU, many jobs can be generated, independently, where money will recirculate back into the UK economy. Traditionally, the EU has been thought too take away the historical way the country has been run and the change, has seemingly been disliked by the older generations. Currently the UK is spending £350 million a week on EU membership, which could easily be contributed towards, the desperately needed funding for the NHS, especially for the jobs of junior doctors.
UKIP (UK independence party), have smashed the purpose of their party, winning over a majority of labour voters, who lost support from a failure of promises not being delivered. Nigel Farage, played a fundamental role, leading the party, by nationally promoting the benefits of leaving the EU.
Ironically, after brexit many supposed side effects of leaving, have simply not happened, although there have been certain noticeable changes. Corporations such as John Lewis and Easyjet have stated the fact costs have increased for them, as the value of the sterling fell. FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 index, as well as other British based businesses, are recovering from the fall in share prices. Delightfully, the bank of England, has declared that interest rates will fall from 0.5% to 0.25% which will evenhandedly help citizens recover from the 2009 recession. Not to mention the resigning of David Cameron, who has now been replaced by Theresa May.
There has been speculation of when article 50 will be triggered, the delaying has been debatably caused by MP's, but surely in no time we will be officially out of the EU. Whether you choose to vote remain or leave, the decision has been made and we must accept the future fate of the country, for the good of the nation, may the odds be in our favor.