With just over six weeks remaining before Britons go to the polls to decide whether or not to leave the European Union, the impact of Brexit on the UK’s science and technology industries is unlikely to colour the decision of most voters.
But the property industry will be watching the referendum results on 23 June with some trepidation, because its outcome is likely to affect future investment decisions, particularly in the east of England where science and technology industries are concentrated.
One of the major claims from Scientists for Britain, a pro-Brexit group led by professor Angus Dalgleish, who stood as a UKIP candidate in the 2015 general election, is that because the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, it would gain surplus money following an EU exit that could be channelled into scientific research and innovation.
But there is no guarantee, or even suggestion, that a Conservative government could or would be able to re-allocate those funds to science. Professor Mike Galsworthy, a visiting researcher at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who leads the pro-EU group Scientists for EU, says: “The attempt to gain financially in the short term via a Brexit is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.”
The issue of immigration is a further cornerstone argument for pro-Brexiters, who contend that the UK’s science and technology industries are not well served by being dictated to by the EU.
Jamie Martin, science policy adviser to Scientists for Britain, and a former special adviser to Michael Gove, says: “We should have an immigration policy based on skills and not on where you were born. The US is hoovering up tech experts that we are losing due to our visa and immigration policies.”
However, there is no evidence to suggest a softening of immigration policy if Britons vote for an EU exit, given that it was pressure from UKIP that led to the referendum. This could make it difficult to win political support in the UK for the freedom of movement terms needed to gain associate status. It is also one of the main concerns for property investors because few businesses are in favour of tightening immigration controls.
Brexiters, however, downplay this issue, arguing that the UK can negotiate associate status, as Norway, Switzerland and Israel have done, ensuring it secures access to EU research networks. But professor Stephen Curry, a professor of structural biology, urges caution when assuming that the UK could carve out a similar deal for itself.
“Brexit would be a troubling event for the remaining countries in the EU and the EU would not want to offer a sweetened deal if the UK were to leave. This throws a degree of uncertainty into the mix,” he says.
Since 1981, the number of scientific papers published in the UK by non-UK authors has risen from 15% to more than 50% today, with almost all the growth in UK output in the form of international collaborations. Most of these collaborations are co-authored with a scientist from an EU member state. Greater international collaboration gives the UK the leading edge in scientific research, ensuring that it attracts the lion’s share of EU money and that UK-based researchers are the lead co-ordinators in more EU projects than any other nation.
The Wellcome Trust, a Cambridgeshire occupier and global charitable foundation dedicated to improving health through science and research, declined to comment directly on the subject. But its focus in relation to the EU referendum is on providing evidence on the role of the EU in science and research, in line with its charitable objectives. Looking at its submissions to House of Lords and Commons committees on the subject, they suggest the trust is pro-EU.
In its submission, it says: “Membership of the EU allows the UK to collaborate in global policy and research activity on significant health challenges such as communicable diseases, drug-resistant infection and the impact of climate change on health. Although this would be possible outside the EU, membership provides more certain access to natural allies and partnerships for us to facilitate discussions.”
The referendum alone is already creating uncertainty and leading to a wait-and-see attitude towards property investment in some quarters. Publicly, developers are playing down the potential impact of a Brexit, but even those that talk down its importance are worried about the transition years.
This is to be expected because a withdrawal from the EU “might also prompt international firms to scale down their plans to invest in R&D in the UK,” according to a 2016 Unesco science report.
The report adds that Britain “would no longer be a gateway to EU markets, nor would its probably stricter immigration laws be particularly supportive of such investment”. This conclusion can only heighten concerns for the property industry.
Pros and cons
To understand the potential impact of Brexit on the R&D property sector, we outline the arguments for staying and for leaving from a scientific viewpoint.
Pros:
- A Brexit would free up money for scientific research
- Britain could become an associate member of the European Research Area
- The UK would not be stifled by costly, top-down EU bureaucracy
- Brexit would allow the UK to set its own immigration policy
Cons:
- Economic analysis suggests an immediate loss in GDP for the transition years
- Brexit is likely to harden an already tough stance on immigration
- Britain would lose its seat at the top table to influence and oversee research
- There would be no EU common pot of funds and administration, jeopardising international collaboration
