Locked out of Horizon Europe, UK commits half a billion to post-Brexit research The UK has earmarked nearly half a billion pounds in "targeted" research investment following what it characterized as the EU's "refusal to finalize UK access to EU programmes Horizon Europe, Euratom and Fusion for Energy." The money – £484 million ($496 million) – is meant to provide "targeted support for staff retention and …
Oh, isn't that nice.
Unfortunately, it's the UK that pushed for a rule that excludes non-EU members from getting EU funding. So yeah, go ahead and blame the EU for not wanting to "cooperate". The EU is just using the rules it has, rules that the UK is more than partially responsible for.
And, since you're no longer part of the EU, you can't go and have the rule changed.
But you've taken back control, so all is well, right ?
Unfortunately the UK portion of El Reg's readers are not typical of the general population.
The Register attracts a section of the populace that is interested in the topics covered, is skilled, intelligent and seemingly has a higher level of education that the general public.
I seem to recall studies that correlate the level of education with the vote to leave or remain.
So yes, most UK commentards were against leaving the EU, but that does not reflect the majority of people in the country.
Mores the pity.
'...most UK commentards were against leaving the EU, but that does not reflect the majority of people in the country.'
Pays us to always remember that that 'majority' was very small, practically within a margin of error, and when set against the adult population overall was actually a pathetic minority.
So, all in all, absolutely NOT a thumping endorsement of 'Brexit' (whatever that word ever meant).
But, we are we we are, and guess what? There are consequences.
If you want to get in the business of interpreting consultative referendums then you need to consider those who didn't think it was worth voting. There is plenty of research that suggests this includes lots of people who are now missing out on these kind of programmes.
@Charlie Clark
"consider those who didn't think it was worth voting"
So the EU utopia of hope and light wasnt worth getting off their arse and voting. Must be so humbling the remain in the EU argument couldnt even muster the motivation to get people to even vote. Wow what a laughing stock.
You're missing the point - wilfully I suspect.
The point being that given what was/is at stake, whether you're for, against, or indifferent, there was no mandate of any substance to inflict such a fundamental and unplanned change on the whole nation.
Politics at it's most poorly and shabbily conducted, but as the old saying goes: 'marry in haste, repent at leisure'.
And look where it's got us. What a shambles.
@Adair
"Politics at it's most poorly and shabbily conducted, but as the old saying goes: 'marry in haste, repent at leisure'."
That would be politics. One of the reasons I dont think government is particularly good at running important things in general and why another level of incompetent government (EU) on top of what we can argue is incompetent government here is a bad thing.
"The point being that given what was/is at stake, whether you're for, against, or indifferent, there was no mandate of any substance to inflict such a fundamental and unplanned change on the whole nation."
And yet since the time of labour we were promised some say over our membership of a supranational political group yet we never had a vote to surrender the country to the EU. And on the first vote we got we said leave.
But that was the problem with the whole Brexit saga - no-one elucidated the benefits of staying in the EU. If being in the EU is all so good it should have been simple to lay out clearly the case and job done. But no - the argument went 'if you want to leave, you're a thick racist'. I note no-one comments on the structural problems with the EU. Its just all good. No-one discussed the trajectory of the future EU and where we'd be in 10 years time.
And I know quite a few people who are on here who voted Brexit and for good reason if you're willing to talk to them. But we're in an era of shouty woke non-listening and unconscious bias where if a white English disagrees with a foreigner the assumption is THEY'RE JUST RACIST!
I hope you get more than the Chinese ones get. Anyway, love the downvotes but notice no evidence is provided to support the EU. Its just if you're against it you're wrong.
For the record I think a European Union is a good idea. I just don't think the one we have is. Discuss. Without engaging your mental CAPS-LOCK.
Woke is the dogma of today's YIPs - Young illiberal progressives. Question anything and you're a fascist. Its the result of having a generation of youngsters pandered to and missing the ability for critical reasoning. Disagreement is 'triggering' and requires the provision of a 'safe-space' for the YIP to recover.
Memo to self : buy shares in safe-spaces!
@Nick Ryan
"I'm still waiting on an actual benefit of brexit to normal people. Apparently there are loads... come on, list five."
I like this. You are waiting for an actual benefit (1) go on name 5. Oh how the goalposts have shifted. Maybe some of you guys are coming around to reality. Maybe
If by 'normal people' you mean the middle class who like foreign holidays, your cheap prosecco and think that everything foreign is great and like your thinking done for you, you might not notice.
If however, you're at the lower end of the pay scale and vulnerable, it might help quite a bit. For example if you peruse the Europol reports on trafficking and child sexual exploitation you will see that freedom of movement has unequivocally increased CSE in Europe. So I like the idea of freedom of movement in principle BUT NOT if a side effect is the increased abuse of the vulnerable. But no, the EU sticks to this dogma at the expense of the vulnerable. Albanians are highlighted, as are countries external to Europe (Nigeria, Vietnam, Afghan and South American) who use soft entry points and then easy trafficking within the EU due to FoM.
So from my perch, the only reason someone would support this is if they see a benefit in having more people to abuse. I dont think it is. But tell me - from your stool is this a benefit or isn't it?
I've got plenty of these examples showing that the structural set-up of the EU and its policies benefit the well off and increase exploitation of the vulnerable - so tell me - do you think increased exploitation of the vulnerable is worth sticking to dogma of the EU, which we are powerless to change?
@AC
"I'm still waiting for you to name one."..."Just name one benefit of Brexit."
Stick your handle to your post and I will see if I have already answered this for you. Too many of you keep asking the same question no matter how many times it is answered. Otherwise you can go look through my post history and find the answers yourself.
Stop deflecting.
Name one benefit of Brexit. Just one.
If such a thing exists, it will be very simple and quick for you to identify it. That would take far less effort for everyone, including yourself, instead of the above whataboutery and barely-concealed trolling.
Go on, pretty please with a cherry on top, name one benefit of Brexit.
@AC
"Stop deflecting."
In response to- "Stick your handle to your post and I will see if I have already answered this for you. Too many of you keep asking the same question no matter how many times it is answered. Otherwise you can go look through my post history and find the answers yourself."
Sounds like if I typed it out you still wouldnt understand it
Is there? Can you point to some evidence?
I am willing to accept your claim that free movement has contributed to increased abuse in some parts of continental Europe, if you say so.
But I see no reason that means there is less abuse in the UK after Brexit than there was. On the contrary, I suspect the more extreme actions needed to enter the country (it being illegal!) have meant that a higher proportion of entrants end up owing a lot of money/control to bad people. That combined with the dire economic state, caused partly by Brexit, lead me to assume that abuse has probably increased.
But if you have some numbers to indicate otherwise, please provide links.
Having to do the research for you again. As I said, its in the Europol reports which I am pulling evidence from. If you cant google stuff by now give up arguing. You've just posited a complete crock. For instance, you dont get to take 'extreme actions' (eg going 100yards on an inflatable from Calais / Dunkirk and getting picked up the RNLI) and use the smugglers on credit - you pay up front! What, you think people smugglers run a credit line?
"That combined with the dire economic state, caused partly by Brexit, lead me to assume that abuse has probably increased."
That makes no sense and isn't a logical consequence. Also you've slipped away from the specific case of CSE (as mentioned in the Europol) to 'abuse' - whatever that means in your head.
Have you any references? Because all the figures published show all trafficking is going up in the UK, since leaving the EU, not down.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-july-to-september-2022/modern-slavery-national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-quarter-3-2022-july-to-september
>>an EU shill like you can earn 13 pieces of silver...
You'll find it's the Brexit-oriented side who profited from dirty money of foreign origins, don't you think, old boy? Selling out their own country for a few more Rubles and Dollars. All for a pig in a poke.
Selling out UK sovereignty so you can get cheap prosecco. Do you understand what being in the EU means? Do you understand the scope of control? Its not just business - if it were, great - but its not. Do you understand its trajectory? Do you understand the significance of being in the EU? You come over as if being in the EU is the de-facto norm which is a mother teat we should all suck on, whereas some people think about these implications and what they mean.
So how do you square that with --I seem to recall studies that correlate the level of education with the vote to leave or remain.--
Is it high level of education means couldn't be arsed or thick = vote, intelligent = stay at home and watch good movie?
About six months after the referendum was held I went to a lecture by an emeritus professor of hard sums at Cambridge University. His particular subject was post election analysis of who voted how. Of course his work fed into swingometers and the like but he was a serious statistician.
He said that at first sight there were the by then well know biases: brexiteers were more likely to be northern, older, less well educated, lower waged etc. None of this held up under rigorous statistical analysis.
There was only one factor that was in any way a significant predictor of how someone voted. If you answered yes to "Do you support the return of capital punishment?" you were more likely to vote leave.
Make of that what you will.
(Copy of a previous post.)
Out of interest, do you know if there was any correlation with "has a linked to the armed services"?
I appreciate it's only a few data points, but I was always shocked how vehemently anti-europe my grandpa was, based on his experiences in the war, and consequently his younger friends/direct family/influence sphere were.
There was a kind of bubble of "pro british/pro army/war spirit" in their extended group (even though none were old enough to be affected by WW2), that was mistrustful of "the sense" of being under-control by a european organisation lead by a country we'd been fighting 50 years ago.
I can't relate at all, but I've never seen it mentioned in stats = would be interested to see if it featured at all...
Not something I saw. My parents lived through the war although my father first served immediately after the war, in Palestine. Neither they, nor their siblings (all older than them) were at all anti-Europe or anti EU.
They were, however, very anti Japanese. Some had served in the Asian theatre, and even experienced prison camps, and my parents lived as expats in S.E. Asia in the '50s. Both of those experiences turned them quite anti-Japanese.
While I have no idea whether later military families were anti-Europe, none of the people I know who lived or served during WWII were anti-Europe or even anti-Germany. I think any such concerns had been well erased by the Cold War, with the need to see West Germany as the frontier of freedom.
What is this post even supposed to mean? Have we had a poll on capital punishment? I didnt see it....
I tell you what I make of this - the 'Texas Sharpshooter' logical fallacy. Other ones can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
-- I seem to recall studies that correlate the level of education with the vote to leave or remain. --
Or to put it slightly more bluntly - if someone doesn't agree with you they're thick - hmmm nice to see what the average remainer thinks of his/her/their fellow citizens.
Indeed - bit it still irks me when people say "we" voted to leave. I certainly didn't. And the country as a whole could hardly have been more undecided on the subject if it had tried.
48/52 was well within the margin of swing that could be exerted by a foreign *cough* russian *cough* propaganda campaign and some slick marketing funded by *cough* russians *cough* tory donors.
You couldn't elect a government on such a flimsy majority, so how come we have made such a grave decision on our country's future on barely a 4% margin? I would have expected a majority of 60% to call it a done deal either way and rule out a second referendum, but instead we get this "we won you lost get over it" bollocks. It's because the winners are invariably the already-wealthy and powerful few, that they are able to manipulate the rules in their favour. Certainly if it had been 52/48 then they would have been screaming for a second referendum.
You couldn't elect a government on such a flimsy majority
Take a quick look at what portion of the vote the Tories got at the last election (I think it as about 42% or so, certainly not a majority), and you'll see that we never elect a government on a flimsy majority. It's a minority, but the horrible FPTP system turns this into a massive majority of seats in the HoC, which in turn means a hideously unrepresentative government which can claim a false mandate for all sorts of shenanigans. This is the main argument or a change to a form of PR to elect our representatives, so they are, you know, representative.
There are a number of reasons why it was far from "lost fairly", apart from the "sidesism" (we won, you lost mindset), because, as far as I can see, we all lost.
Let's start with the fact that the referendum was expliclty non-binding, and to be legally binding would have had to be based on a supermajority, then we can talk about the rule-breaking from Vote Leave that would have been a criminal matter if the referendum had been a binding one, such as over-spending, opaque funding, use of campaigning proxies, and so on. Dodgy Russian money is only one part of this, but it certainly was a part, as was the whole Cambridge Analytica targeted propaganda stuff.
All of this is moot, of course because our elected representatives chose to take us out of the EU, and that was done legally (eventually). The real lie here was that this was done because of the referendum, and that mandated it, because it did not. David Cameron saying "we will respect the result of the referendum" after it had already been agreed explicitly that it didn't bind anyone to any action; even himself, as it turns out, after he metaphorically turned round and ran off the day after the vote. Plenty of other lies followed, such as the one that we had voted to leave the CU/CM (leave campaigners had actually claimed that this was absolutely not on the cards), that we had to invoke Article 50 right away, before deciding what form of "brexit" we actually wanted, and so on.
The whole thing was a total clusterfuck by incompetent populists; you may have noticed how the country has basically gone to shit since 2016, even moreso than under the ideological Tory austerity of the previous years, which itself provided motivation for people to vote to leave the EU as a way out, because they had been sold the lie that Tory austerity was the fault of the EU and not of our own government.
What is forgotten is that the anti-democratic Benn Act was pushed through to enforce an unnecessary deadline.
No deal in time, no Brexit.
This meant that the required haggling and hardball couldn't be done, so we got a crap deal. Which was the plot all along to bring forward the frabjious day when it could be undone.
Also rather deceitful.
In comparison to the 'Brexit farce' Britains entry into the EEC(EU) was a paragon of democratic probity, and in the end actually did have a genuine degree of public assent.
Whether the decision was 'right', 'wrong', or 'of no real consequence in the grand scheme of things' is obviously open to debate.
Oh, and if the "you lost get over it" argument had any weight, the "eurosceptics" would have fucked off 40 years ago.
It's nice to see that they have finally caused the Tory party to rot from the inside-out though, like a maggot-ridden apple. Maybe if John Major has had the balls to expel them from the party in the '90s, they might be back in power as a moderate and responsible centre-right party rather than a shambling mess with the lowest poll ratings they have had in history (even after their "new-leader bounce"). Thankfully, after the next election, they will be gone for a generation. Which, incidentally, is probably how long it will take the country to recover.
-- Certainly if it had been 52/48 then they would have been screaming for a second referendum. --
Unlike you noble remainers you mean. The ones who tried every trick they could to torpedo the results of the referendum. Are you related to NS of neverendum fame by any chance?
This post has been deleted by its author
The shocking online racist "adverts" shown to the elderly, vulnerable and otherwise gullible were something else. All funded by the same bunch of incredibly rich people of course, as in the only ones anywhere that have benefitted in any way from brexit.
The deceitful ads showing people harassed and busy A&E departments, full of "fornerrs" and then cutting to a bright, breezy change of the single white elderly person being shown immediately by an attractive white nurse to see a smiling white daughter. Except the reality is that those that funded brexit campaigns were those same people behind the destruction (privatisation) of the NHS and why there is so little money it. That the NHS was propped up by non-UK natives and these all left due to the unwarranted and spiteful hate they were receiving is another subject glossed over time and time again by the brexit apologists. Who are only able to deflect queries about the benefits of brexit or to just switch to pathetic blaming of "others" as to why brexit has been and is so damaging for the UK.
"So yeah, go ahead and blame the EU for not wanting to "cooperate"."
They're imposing terms that they're not on other third countries (e.g. Israel). Scientists inside and outside the EU agree that this is a disaster, it's probably worth listening to them: https://stick-to-science.eu/
Indeed, but that's human beings for you: petty, self-serving, blinkered, complacent, and fearful. Pick any of those in any order you like.
Thankfully there is good stuff too—-would that we saw more of it more often, especially in the face of the above.
It's nothing to do with "getting EU funding", nobody's asking for EU funds. Sixteen non-EU countries participate in Horizon both paying and receiving funds (that's Horizon funds, not EU funds), membership of Horizon is not dependent on EU membership.
I refer you to the first part of the sentence that you quoted the end of - "The government is disappointed that the EU is still linking UK association with wider issues" - this is the nub of the matter: in the Withdrawal Agreement the EU and UK agreed that the UK would participate in ongoing research projects, including Horizon, but the EU have prevaricated on implementing that agreement on Horizon as a lever in the ongoing dispute over NI.
It's up to them if they want to make such mard-arsed 'I won't be your friend' decisions, but it looks like they are, and the UK can't wait forever and so allocating the would-be Horizon contribution to research within the UK.
I do believe that getting some of the benefits of the agreement whilst ignoring some of the duties of it...would be this "cherry picking" thing that people complained about in the past.
The withdrawal agreement can be boiled down to "you do this and we'll do this", and at the moment people are getting stressed because it's a case of "we want you to do what you agreed but we're not going to do what we agreed".
Maybe, just maybe, it shouldn't have all been lumped into one hastily written agreement. But, then, maybe just maybe Westminster should have actually negotiated seriously instead of pissing around for four years muttering about "red lines" and whatever else to placate the ERG faction. The end result is a shitty agreement that doesn't really help anyone, but it's the agreement that was created, based in part on the strongest possible interpretation of what "leaving" meant.
Whilst I agree on your sentiments, the problems inherent in the island of Ireland were a prime cause of why the negotiations following the Brexit vote took so long.
We had more than two years of trying to come to an (unachievable IMHO) agreement that was satisfactory to all parties, and failing, and time was running out. So a right-wing, very anti-Europe group essentially staged a coup of the Tory party by discrediting the PM and 'sacking' (having them deselected by their constituent Tory associations) all of the pro-Europe Tory MPs, which took huge chunk of Tories experienced in government out of the talent pool (which we're still having fallout from), and then forcing through, by illegally breaking parliamentary process, a number of measures that were never going to fly. Europe knew that the UK was over a barrel, and put in place measures in the agreement over the Irish border, which in my opinion, they hoped would begin the breakup of the UK, and have been largely inflexible about trying to make it work.
The problem is that if they hadn't, we would have hit the backstop that was probably even worse than the agreement they came to.
I wonder sometimes whether just going for a hard Brexit from the outset wouldn't have been better than what we have now, although it may have meant breaking the Good Friday Agreement by putting a hard border in Ireland
"although it may have meant breaking the Good Friday Agreement by putting a hard border in Ireland"
Which would have gone down spectacularly well with the rest of the world...
So, no, I don't think being somewhere between a pariah and a rogue state that reneges on its international obligations is at all the right direction to be moving in.
Well, I don't actually think that there ever was a good solution to this problem. As there are so many fundamental "Red Lines" on both sides, you would anger many people, whatever the solution.
If leaving the EU was axiomatic, it basically comes down to either angering some of your own citizens, or angering people outside of your country.
As I see it, if the EU accepted that allowing goods across the Eire/NI border was not going to be a wholesale route to smuggle stuff into Europe (and can still be enforced by legislation, labelling and post border checks), because Ireland is actually quite a long way from the rest of the EU countries, they could allow a relaxed border for people and goods, and this whole thing could be avoided. I don't think the Irish government object to this proposal, and the UK government are all in favour of such an arrangement, it is the EU, who have set this particular barrier in place, to "protect the integrity of the internal EU single market".
Instead, the agreement is that effectively NI is a part of the single market, and this has required a rigorously defended a trade border in the Irish Sea between two parts of the UK. And surprise, surprise, this upsets almost everybody in NI, causing a breakdown of the local assembly there which is not going to be solved any time soon.
If you've not been following the news from NI, there are serious poverty and goods availability issues there, because in this time of economic hardship caused by factors completely outside of their control, people are not getting assistance from the government (because the NI assembly responsible for these policies, and is not sitting), and many goods are either more expensive or simply not available because of the checks that need to be done as a result of this agreement.
Believe it or not, the Good Friday agreement says that there must be representation from both the Unionists and the Republicans in NI. And depending on whether you are looking at the MPs, the NI Assembly or the local councils, the DUP are either top or second in terms of representation. So a minority but still a significant proportion, perhaps more than any other party.
There is no one majority party. The DUP has more MPs that Sinn Fein, less Assembly members and more Councils. But taking all the Unionist parties together, they are in a majority, and the DUP is the largest of all the other Unionist parties.
But the fact that the DUP represents the significant majority of the Unionists does not alter the fact that the trade border in the Irish Sea is making life in NI very uncomfortable for Republicans and Unionists alike.
Even if the DUP did return to power sharing, the trade barrier would still exist, as would most of the economic woes of the people. Of course, they could then put some government assistance in place (so long as they could come up with a plan better than the "Renewable Heat Incentive"), but the fundamental problems that they are protesting about about would still exist.
Short of ceding NI to the Irish Republic, or getting a different relationship to the EU, these problems are not going away any time soon (and ceding NI would cause all sorts of other problems.)
@heyrick
"Which would have gone down spectacularly well with the rest of the world...
So, no, I don't think being somewhere between a pariah and a rogue state that reneges on its international obligations is at all the right direction to be moving in."
Noting that you are talking about the putting of a hard border in Ireland, that would be the EU breaking such an obligation but actually ROI breaking it under EU direction. The UK expressed no interest in a hard border only to keep deliveries to NI free flowing. Now compare that to what we have where NI is effectively annexed once the remainers interfered with the negotiations.
> the remainers interfered with the negotiations.
Which ones would that be exactly? The Tories were always in power on a pro-Brexit agenda, and BoJo signed the deal he negotiated and advertised as the greatest thing to ever happen the UK.
> The UK expressed no interest in a hard border only to keep deliveries to NI free flowing.
Exactly, the UK wants out of the Union but no borders. News flash: There can only be no borders if you're inside. The current deal was the only one possible considering the Good Friday agreement, and the UK themselves inflicted the Irish sea border.
@gratou
"Which ones would that be exactly?"
May overruled the brexit negotiation team who were telling the EU where to stuff their stupid demands. After that point the negotiations were more 'flexible' to the crap we would accept. And Ireland is a great example of how that turned out.
"The Tories were always in power on a pro-Brexit agenda"
And yet this wasnt a party issue. The tories were split over brexit as was labour. Labours supporters were largely pro-brexit. The tories won on a pro-brexit agenda in the same way Blairs Labour won on a pro-referendum agenda (people seem to forget that).
"Exactly, the UK wants out of the Union but no borders."
Ok so we can agree on the UK's position.
"News flash: There can only be no borders if you're inside."
Actually even inside there was a border. Because ROI and NI are separate with their own laws.
"The current deal was the only one possible considering the Good Friday agreement"
And so if ROI under the direction of the EU wishes to inflict a hard border and that breaks the agreement then ROI is free to break the agreement if they wish. The UK of course being willing to sort out a trade deal but cant force it on ROI nor the EU.
"and the UK themselves inflicted the Irish sea border."
Which was the result of remain interference with the negotiations. There was no good to come from surrendering NI to the EU to inflict harm on them.
"Which was the result of remain interference with the negotiations."
It's still always somebody else's fault.
Boris got elected to Get Brexit Done. He had at least six months he could have had pro Brexit people revise things, but it was all about bluster and idiotic threats (like crashing out). Soon, under the current plans, some four thousand bits of legislation may automatically be expired, with far too short a timeline to ensure there are equivalent rules for such minor things as employee rights. When that shit hits the fan, still going to blame the remainers?
@heyrick
"It's still always somebody else's fault."
When they did it yes. To say otherwise would be wrong. Didnt think that was difficult.
"Boris got elected to Get Brexit Done"
Which only shows how bad previous traitors were.
"He had at least six months he could have had pro Brexit people revise things"
Thats a stupid statement. So after May commits the UK to a bad agreement negotiated in bad faith and suffering severe interference from politicians with no right undermining negotiations you think brexiters should have revised that previous years of negotiations in 6 months. The only great material thing they could have done is bin the agreement from May. Very stupid statement.
"Soon, under the current plans, some four thousand bits of legislation may automatically be expired, with far too short a timeline to ensure there are equivalent rules for such minor things as employee rights."
Great. If there is too much legislation for the gov to process then there is too much legislation. Another layer of crap government on top does not improve things.
This, I believe, is what happens when a timescale isn't set in stone in an agreement, perhaps due to a failure when negotiating it.
If one side isn't keeping the letter of the agreement and complains the other side isn't playing fair because it isn't keeping the spirit of the agreement, it's pretty preposterous. But that's how the UK rolls these days.
Perhaps if the UK started keeping the letter of the agreement, then both sides could start looking at keeping the spirit of the agreement.
"The EU and UK agreed that the UK would participate in ongoing research projects, including Horizon."
There was no time frame set for those negotiations just a goal it would happen.
The EU is not forced in any way.
It has to start from a clean table without any outstanding questions.
@Old Tom
Don't be silly Old Tom, Horizon is an EU project. The fact that they have also accepted some other countries to take part doesn't change that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Europe
"Horizon Europe supports European partnerships in which the EU, national authorities and/or the private sector jointly commit to support the development and implementation of a programme of research and innovation activities. Horizon Europe expanded its partnerships beyond the 27 member states of the EU".
Looks like it's EU, it says so on the tin.
"What is Horizon Europe?
Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation"
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en
@Peter Gathercole
It is an EU program, what is it with you, unable to read or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Europe
"Horizon Europe is a 7-year European Union scientific research initiative, a successor of the recent Horizon 2020 programme and the earlier Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The European Commission drafted and approved a plan for Horizon Europe to raise EU science spending levels by 50% over the years 2021–2027".
@b0llchit
"Your dignity..."
Nope still got that. Especially during the Turkish sofa incident where the president got confused about what gender equality is. Or the embarrassing fiasco with vaccinations. Glad not to be associated with that even with our government infighting to preserve the status quo
Any EU nation was free to do its own thing with vaccinations, being part of that EU procurement plan was not compulsory. Just like the Euro currency is not compulsory. Or your traffic using the left side of the road. Anyway, they all got their vaccinations, the whole thing evened out in the end.
People who attempt to defend Brexit using the covid vaccinations are showing their absolute barrel-scraping desperation. Continue with the in denial comedy please, it’s quite amusing. And in no way is it dignified.
@werdsmith
"Any EU nation was free to do its own thing with vaccinations"
I am sure you have run away from this conversation before when you had nothing to add. At least you aint claiming the EU's dignity wasnt hurt by its screw up.
"Just like the Euro currency is not compulsory"
Unless you sign up to join the EU.
"People who attempt to defend Brexit using the covid vaccinations are showing their absolute barrel-scraping desperation."
Pointing out the truth is barrel scraping. Hmm, I guess your comment is on par with your usual 'contributions'.
@werdsmith
"Like I said, you are extremely funny in your indignant response and desperate denial."
You aint worth the typing so I copy and paste one of my previous comments concerning this-
"It was politically untenable for the UK gov to throw in with the EU procurement when we finally left the EU. It would be UK supremacist to believe the UK is better run than every member country in the EU and every one of them joined the joint procurement under pressure from the EU. Some countries such as Germany actually had a plan and binned it to join the EU joint procurement. So why do you believe the UK gov is so superior as to remain but reject the joint program? Do you truly believe the UK government is superior to all the other member governments?
But thats not the end! The EU screwed up so badly they were desperate. They stole vaccine destined for export and made direct threats against the UK to steal vaccine destined for here! Without the weight of EU law and our EU membership to abuse they tried to steal from the UK! So why do you believe they wouldnt have done so as members and of course would use the union as the excuse to redistribute?"
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/04/08/after_minimum_viable_product_rollout/#c_4443058
Try reading this:
Rödl & Partner: The Vaccine War: AstraZeneca vs the EU – A Fact-Check
Conclusion here:
This provision – an assurance to the EU, in effect – expressly excludes AstraZeneca from prioritizing the UK supply. In doing so, as expressly admitted to by the CEO (Pascal Soriot: ‘first come, first served’) AstraZeneca risks a material breach of the Contract. Consequently, AstraZeneca may feel obliged to shift its priorities between its customers.
Ultimately it may be for the courts to decide under Belgian law if AstraZeneca has met its ‘Best Reasonable Efforts’ obligation. It is evident that the dispute will lead to some form of dispute resolution or renegotiation as the ‘urgent’ circumstances of the pandemic require it.
The matter ultimately highlights the importance of careful drafting in commercial contracts in order to avoid disputes such as this.
And then, sadly, the wheels fell off the AZ cart when the blood clotting problem for certain age ranges was discovered by the EMA. It took a week or two for the MHRA to come to the same conclusion but it finally did.
@Dan 55
"Try reading this:"
Thats a lot of text to say AZ was right. The EU screwed up the contract and in the end the court told AZ they must deliver a quantity which AZ was already going to exceed.
"And then, sadly, the wheels fell off the AZ cart when the blood clotting problem for certain age ranges was discovered by the EMA"
Yup which is what happens when in a crisis we dont have time to test to a high standard. How many died from not getting vaccinated due to propaganda by certain European leaders while they still tried to steal more vaccine from the UK we dont know.
How many died from not getting vaccinated due to propaganda by certain European leaders while they still tried to steal more vaccine from the UK we dont know.
So, apart from repeating your baseless shrill accusation that "nasty EU stole our vaccines" (hint: court found they didn't), you're claiming that fewer people in the EU got vaccinated due to European leaders' propaganda (hint: there is increased clotting in certain age groups with the AZ vaccine) however the the UK's vaccination level is hardly world beating. Note, I've set the date to 10/10 because it seems the UK has recently stopped reporting its vaccine level.
Also worth pointing out that EU countries continued to offer AZ targeted to safe age ranges. The UK did too, but as they put all their eggs in the AZ basket, other age ranges stalled while they found supplies of other vaccines.
@Dan 55
"So, apart from repeating your baseless shrill accusation that "nasty EU stole our vaccines" (hint: court found they didn't)"
Just pointing to the smoke coming from your trousers but where did I say the EU DID steal vaccine? They threatened to and the UK even agreed to share some of our allocation from a manufacturer in Holland.
"you're claiming that fewer people in the EU got vaccinated due to European leaders' propaganda (hint: there is increased clotting in certain age groups with the AZ vaccine)"
With the risk being less than the pill wasnt it? And wasnt Covid meant to be some world ending virus?
"however the the UK's vaccination level is hardly world beating"
Why must it be world beating? What is with the willy waving? But more to the point you dont seem to understand how irrelevant the 'level' of vaccination is since we allow for personal choice, it is the speed and availability that matters. Unless you suggest the UK become some authoritarian country dictating everyone gets the shot or gets shot?
"Also worth pointing out that EU countries continued to offer AZ targeted to safe age ranges"
Which is why the propaganda was so dangerous. AZ was on offer but being rejected and so wasted thanks to politicians.
"The UK did too, but as they put all their eggs in the AZ basket, other age ranges stalled while they found supplies of other vaccines."
At this point your trousers are in full blaze. The UK didnt put all its eggs in one basket, like others the UK funded a range of options being developed. Now if you do want to talk eggs in one basket there was the French imposed limit of 'other' vaccine could be bought depending on how much was ordered from Sanofi.
"Just like the Euro currency is not compulsory"
Unless you sign up to join the EU.
You're talking garbage again.
Countries joining the EU have to agree to adopt the Euro. But they don't have to do this and can't be made to use the Euro. A country can't adopt the Euro until they've been in the ERM for at least two years. Entry to the ERM is voluntary. Countries get to choose to do that. And qualification for the ERM is limited to countries who have stable public finances and credible macroeconomic polices.
If/when the UK rejoins the EU, joining the Euro won't be an issue because it'll have no hope of ever meeting the criteria for entering the ERM: stable interest & exchange rates, low public deficits and debt, etc.
No, this is absolute barrel scraping:
https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/29/eu_commission_vaccine_contract_redaction_fail/
And my comment on it at the time was:
"Re: Clearly states the first batch is manufactured in EU, not UK
Section 5.4 specifically states that it only applies to section 5.4. Thus it cannot be applied to any other part of section 5 including section 5.1 which requires "best endeavours" to manufacture the vaccine in the EU. Thus UK production can not be included in section 5.1. The blatant claim by Ursula that this only applied during the development of the vaccine and not during it's production is a good example of a usually honest politician doing what so many politicians do best - lying (IMHO)."
If you want to talk about fiascos related to COVID-19, you could do worse than start with outcomes: the UK's death rate remained significantly above that of comparable EU countries, and that's despite the "headstart" with vaccinations. There are lessons to be learned on allsides.
Brexit (implemented by the Tories) robbed us of:
Just strolled in to my local market town - the nice shop I used to buy trivial xmas pressies for aunts and cousins...shut. With a clear statement that as a small trader directly importing stock from the EU they could no longer make it profitable given the extra customs and trading costs and bureaucracy. Just one small example, which I guess we must celebrate. After all it's only one small business....and there are all the other advantages, like err......
You stole a myriad of opportunities from my daughter. There are many things she will never be able to do because of this Brexit, and so far the only "benefit" has been Rees-Mogg and a few other extremely rich people making quite a lot of money from the UK's economic collapse.
And no, I will not forgive you for that.
@R Soul
"We're the poorest performing economy in the G20 - apart from Russia."
Expected to be. Of course what actually happens will be shown months after it happened.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-annual-growth-rate?continent=g20
Of course after the tory backstabbing to kick out Truss and Kwarteng we are bound to take a hit.
@Lars
"As far as I know the "market" too the end of Truss and Kwarteng as a positive."
And so complaining about economic performance would be a good reason to dislike their removal.
"And seriously I don't think Britain has ever had anybody so empty headed as PM as Truss."
While not great she must clear the bar from some of our past examples.
@SundogUK
I have wondered for a very long time why Brits tend to open any topic by telling each other how big they (still) are.
Have you ever thought about the reason to that. Do you think other European people do the same constantly. I don't think so.
And as for France, there has to be a "France" in there too, you just cannot avoid it, yes they are just and just behind you still, but only by 8%.
I have no doubt they will catch up.
But the point is, so what.
What you poor sods are taught not to think about is how you are actually doing personally.
As per capita "ppp" you are 26th.
And per capita nominal 22nd.
And because the difference between the rich and the poor in Britain is so very high in comparison to most of Europe you would do even worse if the one "percenters" were left out of all those calculations.
And to understand the value of being number 6 in the world, adding together the 1 to 5 you find that number 6 represents about 4% of that sum.
(do you really feel that small or that big).
For a list of countries according to per capita ppp try this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
But take care all the same, the worst is yet to come.
"We're still the sixth largest economy in the world and France isn't going to catch us any time soon"
You do realise, don't you, that your very own statement confirms the damage that a hard Brexit has done to the UK?
If it had not been for the economic damage done by that hard Brexit of Johnson's then the UK would still be ahead of India in the world GDP rankings in fifth place and no amount of dissembling can hide that fact.
Indeed, if things stay as they are then France will also overtake the UK in the world GDP rankings table to leave the UK in seventh place. That will be the lasting toxic legacy of Johnson's very hard Brexit.
"To put that in context.. " - goes on to quote a completely out of context figure.
The questions that should be being asked are - over what periods, and for which research groups? Half the point of holding this incompetent government to account is actually pointing out where and what the shortfall is, so that people can draw useful conclusions over what should be done. Mentioning one number, then dropping references to other much bigger numbers is the sort of fact free reporting we'd expect of the Daily Mail.
Come on, Reg, you're better than this.
Very one-sided reporting - the UK received about the same % of Horizon 2020 funding as it contributed to the overall EU budget - so "nothing to see here"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03598-2
What IS important, and an absolute disgrace is that the UK "Plan B" for R&D funding announced only last year, is now an absolute bust:
Investment in R&D and innovation will help drive economic growth and create the jobs of the future. At the Budget and SR, the government is increasing public R&D investment to record levels: £20 billion by 2024-25. This is an increase of around a quarter in real terms over the SR period, and makes significant progress towards the government’s ambition to spend £22 billion on R&D by 2026-27 and towards achieving the economy-wide target to invest 2.4% of GDP in R&D in 2027
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043688/Budget_AB2021_Print.pdf
@ParlezVousFranglais
You choose to write that "the UK received about the same % of Horizon 2020 funding as it contributed to the overall EU budget".
But you could also have written this from the text you linked to.
Also note how low the British contribution is compared to also France.
"The United Kingdom received 12.1% (more than €7 billion) of the Horizon 2020 funding; by comparison, the country’s average contribution to the overall EU budget is around 11.4% of the total.
Germany took home the biggest percentage of Horizon 2020 funding (14.9%), but it contributes a higher percentage to the overall EU budget (20.9%). Likewise, France’s funding share (11.1%) was lower than its average contribution percentage to the EU budget (17%)".".
Because how much the Germans and French get out compared to what they put in isn't relevant to the point being made in the article.
The article is saying the UK is worse off financially because it's losing €7 billion of funding, but actually it isn't.
What's happened is we're not giving or receiving anything - overall we're pretty much evens financially - the PROBLEM is that a significant chunk of the money that last year was heading from the UK Treasury to R&D in the UK, is now funding other UK priorities.
Being kicked out of Horizon of course is a disaster for R&D collaborations on both sides of the channel, and I guarantee you that it's the NI protocol and very little else that is standing in the way of a resolution, but at the moment, the UK government is probably quite happy that it has the flexibility to NOT contribute as much to R&D and use that cash instead to prop up Health and Social Care
Short-sighted of course, but c'est la vie...
A half billion imperial, nay sovereign, pounds is worth a lot more than 0.5 billion johnny foreigner toy money any day of the week... Actual quote by Jacob Smug-Git and as "regaled" to him by his dear papa in 1843 (or whenever he was hatched).
I had some rabid brexiteer last week, trying to convince me that the huge queues (take note Am-Reg) at Dover are caused by the huge volume of goods we're exporting to the EU now we've left. I called him a twat.
EU's "refusal to finalize UK access
The government is disappointed that the EU is still linking UK association with wider issues
What a surprise. I see the Tories continue to blame the EU, even after leaving the Union.
It's common for politicians not to accept the blame for their own actions. In that dimension, the UK government remains World class.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
It was a cracking choice of targets too, and a clever perception of the UKs soft underbelly. Horizon funds a huge range of medical research as part of its remit so the Tories not backing down will leave a lot of people who currently receive inferior treatment angry at the Tories while the EU comes out smelling of roses. Either that or we get a united Ireland out of it so, win win.
"The United Kingdom received €7 billion ($7.2 billion)"
Is proper money no longer relevant on this once-UK news site?
It's been struggling to retain relevance as a news site for a while now. I've almost given up coming here for up-to-the-minute technology news. Few stories now appear before US waking hours and increasingly many fail to materialise at all. Several times recently the BBC site has had technology stories that weren't to be found here (a couple of significant Twitter-related items were conspicuous by their absence).
Some big player saying to another country, "We will not cooperate on science and technology unless you allow us to dictate the rules on everything else" would normally have you guys up in arms. But no, because you are still such sore losers over Brexit, you just have to stand on your heads.
It's about honouring, and abiding by, binding legal agreements. The UK has to uphold its end of the bargain it made with the EU, and passed in Parliament. It is failing to do so.
Ironically your comment shows how damaging Brexit is, having isolated itself from a larger group it is now vulnerable, not just to EU machinations but to every other nation and international grouping as well.
If any other country signed an agreement then immediately refused to abide by it, what would you say about that?
Thanks to the dishonourable Mr Johnson, the UK is in the weakest possible negotiating position because nobody really thinks the UK will actually honour anything they sign.
@codejunky
Why do you claim AstraZeneca won when in fact this happened, The case was settled and you cannot say the EU lost.
"In April 2021, the European Commission announced that it would sue Astra Zeneca for delaying the timely delivery of Vaxzevria at a time when "every vaccine counts, because every vaccine can save lives".[110][111] In September 2021, the lawsuit was finally settled with AstraZeneca agreeing to deliver 60 million doses of vaccines to EU member states by October, 75 million by the end of the year, and 65 million more by April 2022.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstraZeneca#Lawsuits
Third world isolation beckons. Everything that the remainers said would happen, is happening.
It's across the board from academia to trade. Hull's fishing fleet is down to one trawler. Does that qualify as a fleet?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-63676965
If you want a piece of the pie, join the brain drain and move to an EU country.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
