6 ms·

This is "great news" for researchers and UK universities in particular but this is also "terrible news" because it's yet another instance of special treatment t

This is "great news" for researchers and UK universities in particular but this is also "terrible news" because it's yet another instance of special treatment that weakens the overall system. What I mean by that it's the notion of "we can be out while still be kinda in". No system can survive for long if this is widespread. I get most of the UK scientific community was against Brexit, but the truth is the majority voted what they voted, yes it's a terrible mistake even seen from Pluto but it is what it is. If you want in again, then make the political transformations first like anyone else. Yes, nothing was ever by the book and perfect but this type of loopholes, Northern Ireland deals, etc. will come out as net-negative in the end.

physicsguy 3y ago
Eh? The UK has 'rejoined' as an associate member, in the same way that a number of other countries are associate members.
- smackay 3y ago
  Here is a list of associate members, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs... which also lays out some of the terms. If you scroll down there's a list of countries which can participate and who are automatically eligible to apply for funding too. So the EU, at least bits of it, despite all the talk of gardens and jungles, is still a force for good in the world.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  Yes, but the deal is not really as a clean-slate external member just joined. Of course there are many pending issues from the past, as it would be expected, many long term investment and commitment were made and then one could colorfully say "the UK took the money and run" ( I know it's much more complicated than that ), and this deal kinda addresses that. I'm not against this particular deal, in fact I'm moderately in favor. However IMO these kinds of 100 separate deals so the UK can get the "goods" while still being out are not good in the long run. ( the UK always had kind of a special deal since the 60s, but there is so much bad blood and misinformation it's pointless to acknowledge that )
  - vidarh 3y ago
    But this does not seem to really be a special deal. Participation in Horizon on an associate level is available to any country that meets a set of criteria that largely boils down to pretty much any reasonably developed market economy, with a long list of non-EEA European or neighbouring countries automatically allowed under other criteria. See Article 16 in [1]. For Horizon, it'd have been a major diplomatic "fuck you" if the UK was refused given the wording of Article 16. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe
concordDance 3y ago
I think the EU can survive just fine with associate members and similar non-full members who do things like pooled science funding.
pjc50 3y ago
I suspect the only way we'll get back in is by very laboriously arguing for each piece separately, to keep it "below the radar" of newspaper attacks. Next is probably EFTA, like Norway. We could even have a special carveout for fish like Norway.
jcfrei 3y ago
Yeah but still makes sense for both because the UK is probably the best place for research in Europe: Oxford, Cambridge and a viable, international startup scene.
nvm0n2 3y ago
> No system can survive for long if this is widespread. Scientific collaboration can obviously not only survive but is enhanced by the EU dropping its xenophobic institutional barriers to non-EU countries working with them. What you mean is that if European countries realize they can leave the EU and still work together, then the EU itself as a political institution can't survive long. But if you believe that then it is another way of saying the EU isn't actually useful and exists only due to its cartel-like "all or nothing" stance. In which case good riddance, Europeans and the rest of the world can work together much better without it.
kypro 3y ago
Or looked at another way, it just weakness the parts of the system where there are disagreements. The most frustrating thing about the EU is that there are both great and awful things about it. Some things almost all EU nations agree on, such as having strong trading relationships and joint research programs, but often this comes bundled with stuff there is far more disagreement on the Schengen Area and the Euro. I think the EU would be stronger if was purely an opt-in / opt-out model. Forcing such a diverse group of nations to all adopt a single system is neither in the interest the people living in EU or in the interest of the long-term viability of the EU.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Ironically both Schengen and the Euro are opt-in, as can be seen by not all members of the EU being members of one or the other. Post-Brexit wrangling crystallized something for me: the EU should be seen as the venue for solving problems rather than the solution. Leaving the EU does not make problems go away, they still need to be resolved; (re)joining it does not solve problems either, but it provides a series of discussion and agreement mechanisms which can be used to solve them.
  - PedroBatista 3y ago
    "Thank" God COVID happened and most of the real consequences of Brexit could be attached to COVID, and then "thank" Russia for invading Ukraine so we can attach the problems of printing trillions of $/€/£ on the war.
okeuro49 3y ago
> yes it's a terrible mistake even seen from Pluto The EU isn't some sort of perfect organisation and is _badly_ in need of reform. To quote Veroufakis: > As he spoke, Schäuble directed a piercing look at Sapin. ‘Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy,’ he began. ... Of course he had a point: democracy had indeed died the moment the Eurogroup acquired the authority to dictate economic policy to member states without anything resembling federal democratic sovereignty.

physicsguy 3y ago

Eh? The UK has 'rejoined' as an associate member, in the same way that a number of other countries are associate members.

smackay 3y ago
Here is a list of associate members, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs... which also lays out some of the terms. If you scroll down there's a list of countries which can participate and who are automatically eligible to apply for funding too. So the EU, at least bits of it, despite all the talk of gardens and jungles, is still a force for good in the world.
PedroBatista 3y ago
Yes, but the deal is not really as a clean-slate external member just joined. Of course there are many pending issues from the past, as it would be expected, many long term investment and commitment were made and then one could colorfully say "the UK took the money and run" ( I know it's much more complicated than that ), and this deal kinda addresses that. I'm not against this particular deal, in fact I'm moderately in favor. However IMO these kinds of 100 separate deals so the UK can get the "goods" while still being out are not good in the long run. ( the UK always had kind of a special deal since the 60s, but there is so much bad blood and misinformation it's pointless to acknowledge that )
- vidarh 3y ago
  But this does not seem to really be a special deal. Participation in Horizon on an associate level is available to any country that meets a set of criteria that largely boils down to pretty much any reasonably developed market economy, with a long list of non-EEA European or neighbouring countries automatically allowed under other criteria. See Article 16 in [1]. For Horizon, it'd have been a major diplomatic "fuck you" if the UK was refused given the wording of Article 16. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe

concordDance 3y ago

I think the EU can survive just fine with associate members and similar non-full members who do things like pooled science funding.

pjc50 3y ago

I suspect the only way we'll get back in is by very laboriously arguing for each piece separately, to keep it "below the radar" of newspaper attacks. Next is probably EFTA, like Norway. We could even have a special carveout for fish like Norway.

jcfrei 3y ago

Yeah but still makes sense for both because the UK is probably the best place for research in Europe: Oxford, Cambridge and a viable, international startup scene.

nvm0n2 3y ago

> No system can survive for long if this is widespread. Scientific collaboration can obviously not only survive but is enhanced by the EU dropping its xenophobic institutional barriers to non-EU countries working with them. What you mean is that if European countries realize they can leave the EU and still work together, then the EU itself as a political institution can't survive long. But if you believe that then it is another way of saying the EU isn't actually useful and exists only due to its cartel-like "all or nothing" stance. In which case good riddance, Europeans and the rest of the world can work together much better without it.

kypro 3y ago

Or looked at another way, it just weakness the parts of the system where there are disagreements. The most frustrating thing about the EU is that there are both great and awful things about it. Some things almost all EU nations agree on, such as having strong trading relationships and joint research programs, but often this comes bundled with stuff there is far more disagreement on the Schengen Area and the Euro. I think the EU would be stronger if was purely an opt-in / opt-out model. Forcing such a diverse group of nations to all adopt a single system is neither in the interest the people living in EU or in the interest of the long-term viability of the EU.

pjc50 3y ago
Ironically both Schengen and the Euro are opt-in, as can be seen by not all members of the EU being members of one or the other. Post-Brexit wrangling crystallized something for me: the EU should be seen as the venue for solving problems rather than the solution. Leaving the EU does not make problems go away, they still need to be resolved; (re)joining it does not solve problems either, but it provides a series of discussion and agreement mechanisms which can be used to solve them.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  "Thank" God COVID happened and most of the real consequences of Brexit could be attached to COVID, and then "thank" Russia for invading Ukraine so we can attach the problems of printing trillions of $/€/£ on the war.

okeuro49 3y ago

> yes it's a terrible mistake even seen from Pluto The EU isn't some sort of perfect organisation and is _badly_ in need of reform. To quote Veroufakis: > As he spoke, Schäuble directed a piercing look at Sapin. ‘Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy,’ he began. ... Of course he had a point: democracy had indeed died the moment the Eurogroup acquired the authority to dictate economic policy to member states without anything resembling federal democratic sovereignty.