̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - European Union (EU)

Cambridge researchers awarded European Research Council funding

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Mar 2022 13:14:45 +0000

Cambridge received the most awards of any UK institution, alongside ̽��ֱ�� College London, which also received five awards.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge winners are among 313 winners of the latest round of Consolidator Grants, backed with some €632 million. Part of the EU’s Horizon Europe programme, this new round of grants will create an estimated 1,900 jobs for postdoctoral fellows, PhD students and other staff at 189 host institutions.

Dr Ana Cvejic from the Department of Haematology was awarded a grant for her CONTEXT project (Aneuploidy and Its Impact on Blood Development: Context Matters). ̽��ֱ��focus of her research is to understand how blood cells develop and how their development and their ultimate function is influenced by their environment and environmental cues. ̽��ֱ��aim is to use this knowledge to develop new ways to treat disease and improve human health.

Professor Nikku Madhusudhan from the Institute of Astronomy was awarded a grant for his SUBNEPTUNES project (Probing Exoplanetary Atmospheres in the Sub-Neptune Regime). His research is focused on the atmospheres, interiors and formation mechanisms of exoplanets. In 2021, he identified a new class of exoplanet, dubbed Hycean planets, which could greatly accelerate the search for life outside our Solar System.

Professor Ulrich Schneider from the Cavendish Laboratory was awarded a grant for his KAGOME project (A quantum gas microscope for the Kagome lattice). Schenider studies ‘many-body’ phenomena at the interface between quantum optics and solid state physics.

Dr Philippa Steele from the Faculty of Classics was awarded a grant for her VIEWS project (Visual Interactions in Early Writing Systems). Her research focuses on the relationships between Aegean writing systesm and the development of the early Greek alphabet.

Dr Laura Torrente Murciano from the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology was awarded funding for her RESTARTNH3 project (Energy functional processes and materials for storage of renewable energy in ammonia). Her research focuses on the integration of processes and development of novel catalytic routes for sustainable technologies.

President of the ERC Professor Maria Leptin said: ”Even in times of crisis and conflict and suffering, it is our duty to keep science on track and give our brightest minds free reign to explore their ideas. We do not know today how their work might revolutionise tomorrow - we do know that they will open up new horizons, satisfy our curiosity and most likely help us prepare for unpredictable future challenges. So, I am thrilled to see a new group of ERC grant winners funded for their scientific journey. I wish them the best of luck on their way to push the frontiers of our knowledge!”

Five ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge researchers have been awarded Consolidator Grants from the European Research Council, the premier European funding organisation for excellent frontier research.

Westend61

European Commission, Brussels

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Message from the Vice-Chancellor regarding the UK and the European Union

cjb250 — Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:25:05 +0000

Over the past three years, working groups across the collegiate ̽��ֱ�� have been assessing the impact of leaving the European Union with or without a deal. They have been making sure that the ̽��ֱ�� and the Colleges are as well placed as they can be to deal with the consequences of any scenario.

In the weeks ahead, we will communicate directly to staff and students on issues including travel, personal data and research funding, as and when necessary. Staff and students can find the very latest information from the ̽��ֱ�� on our Brexit webpages, which I ask you to consult regularly for any updates.

Cambridge colleagues will continue to engage with the government and policy-makers to seek clarity on issues where uncertainty remains.

Looking ahead

Today’s outcome is only the latest step in a long and complex process. While we now know the contours of the agreement, is impossible to predict exactly what the short, medium and long-term implications of this form of Brexit will be.

I am in no doubt that Cambridge will be able to adapt successfully to the new realities. Even as it does, I am determined that we look forward and continue to build on the decades of openness, collaboration and cross-border academic inquiry that have allowed us – working alongside our European partners – to create knowledge and tackle global challenges.

̽��ֱ��collegiate ̽��ֱ��’s leadership is determined that the UK’s departure from the European Union will not deter us from remaining an open and welcoming ̽��ֱ��, or erase long-standing bonds of collaboration and friendship.

It is now up to institutions like ours to help shape our future relationship with our European and global partners. We have every intention of doing so.

We will continue to work alongside our valued European partners. We will continue to build collaborations with organisations and Universities across the continent that share our aspirations and values. And we will continue to reach out to friends around the world – from Munich to Nanjing, from Paris to Delhi – to show through our actions that we are a global university.

Professor Stephen J Toope

Vice-Chancellor, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

You will all be aware by now that the United Kingdom and the European Union signed a trade agreement earlier today (24 December), ending weeks of arduous negotiations. After a long period of continued uncertainty, we finally have some clarity on the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and the future relationship between them.

TheDigitalArtist

UK and EU flags

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Cambridge joins EU partners in ten-million-euro proteomics project

ta385 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:41:40 +0000

̽��ֱ��European Union has awarded ten million euros to a consortium of 18 research groups in the field of mass spectrometry based proteomics research.

̽��ֱ��European Proteomics Initiative Consortium (EPIC-XS), funded as part of the Horizon 2020 Work programme, is coordinated by Albert Heck, professor of biomolecular mass spectrometry and proteomics at Utrecht ̽��ֱ��. ̽��ֱ��project began on 1 January 2019 and will run for four years.

Proteomics, the large-scale study of proteins and their role in living cells and organisms, is an important technology used to gain insight into the function of biological systems. Proteomics has been applied in many different types of studies. These include understanding how cells of the body respond to drug treatment and discovering new biomarkers in body fluids such as blood serum that can be used to detect disease but also monitor how patients respond to treatment.

Proteomics research requires state of the art technology, in-house technical know-how, sustainable and robust workflow practices, successful and correct data interpretation, and data management. ̽��ֱ��EPIC-XS initiative will support researchers by providing them with access to state of the art proteomics equipment, and allowing them to submit research proposals that make use of the proteomics technology offered by the project.

This initiative is a follow-up of the previous European proteomics infrastructure project PRIME-XS, which was completed in 2015. EPIC-XS will again provide access to proteomics facilities throughout Europe, supporting and expanding the European proteomics community with its expertise. ̽��ֱ��provision of courses and training programs will enable new research communities to be schooled in advanced proteomics technologies.

̽��ֱ��EPIC-XS consortium consists of partners from fifteen nations: Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Czechia, Austria and Norway. All partners share a common goal: to facilitate the development and sustainability of proteomics exploration to all life science researchers within the European Union.

̽��ֱ��British partner of EPIC-XS is the Cambridge Centre for Proteomics (CCP). CCP was established in 2000 in the Department of Biochemistry. Since then, CCP has become a world-leading facility applying its technology to a wide variety of biological questions. ̽��ֱ��Centre is comprised of a core facility that offers full quantitative analysis on virtually any sample of any complexity and a research group that creates and applies novel proteomics technology. Its Director, Professor Kathryn Lilley, said:

“I am delighted that CCP is involved in EPIC-XS, having been a partner in its highly successful forerunner, PRIME-XS. As part of consortium, we develop technology, combining our expertise in determining where proteins are located within living cells, with that of our European colleagues who are using proteomics to investigate protein structure.

“This kind of international partnership is essential. There is a vast array of proteomics methods and each research laboratory can only become expert in a sub-set of these. By working together, we can unite and finesse our methodologies to uncover important cellular processes inaccessible with current approaches. This will make us greater than the sum of our parts.”

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has joined European partners in a major study of proteins which will shed light on the role played by biological systems in health and disease.

This kind of international partnership is essential

Kathryn Lilley

̽��ֱ��Lilley research group, Cambridge Centre for Proteomics

Yes

Brexit: the three transition options open to the UK

fpjl2 — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:45:09 +0000

For some time now, both the United Kingdom and European Union have agreed that once the UK ceases to be a Member State on 29 March 2019, it will enter into a ‘stand-still’ period – during which the UK will continue to be bound by its existing EU obligations.

̽��ֱ��rationale behind this is to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ departure that would see tariffs and regulatory controls imposed on cross-border trade between the UK and the EU.

To the extent there has been disagreement between the two sides it has been on terminology – the EU refers to this as a ‘transition period’ while the UK insists on calling it an ‘implementation period’ – and duration – the UK sought a two-year period whereas the EU was only willing to agree a transition that would end on 31 December 2020 (coinciding with the end of the current budgetary ‘multi-annual framework’). ̽��ֱ��UK agreed to the EU’s offer of a transition ending in December 2020.

However, the duration of the transition period has come back to the fore of the negotiations for two reasons.

̽��ֱ��UK believes that the issue of how to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland can only properly be resolved in the context of the negotiations on the future economic relationship. ̽��ֱ��UK had hoped that this might be negotiated in parallel with the withdrawal arrangements.

However, the EU has insisted that it is only the framework for future cooperation that can be discussed in the context of the withdrawal negotiations, meaning that the terms of a future economic relationship can only be agreed once the UK leaves. As long as the UK is in transition, the issue of frontier controls on the island of Ireland does not arise.

But with the transitional period ending at the end of 2020, EU negotiators have insisted on the need for a ‘backstop’ to ensure that, if transition ends without a deal that meets the commitments made in the 2017 Joint Report, a ‘hard border’ in Ireland will be avoided. It is the failure to reach agreement on a backstop which is making negotiators on both sides reconsider a time-limited transition period.

̽��ֱ��second reason is that the pace of negotiations, coupled with deep disagreement over the UK Government’s ‘Chequers Plan’, suggest that the transition period as currently conceived will be too short to allow for negotiations on a future relationship to be concluded. Taken together with the backstop issue, minds have turned to whether it would be prudent to extend transition.

In a recent European Policy Centre paper, Tobias Lock and Fabian Zuleeg make a strong case for the extension of transition, suggesting that a one-time one-year option to extend transition would be a workable solution.

In a new Research Paper, I have looked at three potential models for an extended transition:

A one-off option to extend transition for a year following the end of the initial transition period (the Lock and Zuleeg model)
A rolling or open-ended transition with an exit mechanism
An extended transition and implementation facility.

While Lock and Zuleeg make a good case, their proposal still risks a ‘second cliff-edge’ at the end of an extended transitional period if there is no agreement on a future relationship. A one-year optional extension may not give negotiators enough time to reach an agreement, and might not create sufficient confidence to avoid the need to negotiate a backstop.

̽��ֱ��most obvious way to avoid a backstop would be to keep the UK in transition unless and until a new economic partnership between the UK and the EU was agreed (provided also that this met the commitments on the Irish border agreed in the 2017 Joint Report).

However, a perpetual transition would be politically unacceptable, difficult to manage in budgetary terms, and conflict with EU law. It would, therefore, need an exit mechanism. This could be modelled on Article 50 itself and allow either the UK or the EU to notify the other of their intention to end the transition period.

A compromise solution draws on the existing draft Agreement, and would allow transition to end once new agreements on customs and trade, foreign, security and defence policy are agreed and became applicable. Unlike an open transition, this facility would need a defined endpoint, and a proposed deadline of 31 December 2022 is suggested.

̽��ֱ��aim would be to give negotiators the flexibility to agree new partnership arrangements, but with incentives to reach agreements early – avoiding the continued use of the transition and implementation facility. ̽��ֱ��UK and EU could depart transition well before the facility expired.

Kenneth Armstrong is Professor of European law and holds a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellowship for the project ̽��ֱ��Brexit Effect – Convergence, Divergence and Variation in UK Regulatory Policy.

̽��ֱ��full Faculty of Law working paper can be viewed here.

Will the UK agree to an extended transition period, keeping it bound by EU rules for longer after exiting the EU? Here, Professor Kenneth Armstrong outlines three “potential models” to extend the transition period, as explored in his new research paper published today.

A perpetual transition would be politically unacceptable... and conflict with EU law. It would, therefore, need an exit mechanism

Kenneth Armstrong

Number 10

PM and (then) Brexit Secretary sign commemorative copies of EU (Withdrawal) Act

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Thatcher papers for 1988 reveal her 'deep enthusiasm' for the single market

sjr81 — Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:00:58 +0000

Her speechwriting files for Bruges, including drafts and contributions from outsiders, are among more than 40,000 pages of Lady Thatcher’s papers for the year 1988 being opened to the public at Churchill College from Monday.

They show that rather than acting as a call-to-arms for Eurosceptics and attacking the principles behind the single market – of which Thatcher was something of a devotee – her speech was more concerned with the perceived power grab by European Commission chief Jacques Delors, and a possible move to a more ‘federal’ European ‘super-state’.

Historian Chris Collins of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, the only person to date to have read all 40,000 pages of material being released, said: “She wanted her speech to be about direction, rather than point scoring – and she edges back from attacking the Commission, approaching it in a more intellectual style.

“I know she was uncomfortable about the venue, but we are very lucky in that few of her speeches remain in such a complete form as this.

“When you read her papers for 1988, you see her sheer level of enthusiasm for the single market. She goes up hill and down dale with deep enthusiasm because this is practical Europe, this is how it works together. ̽��ֱ��role of speechwriter Hugh Thomas – a committed Europhile – is also crucial to consider when looking at this speech from a historical perspective.”

̽��ֱ��1988 papers are the latest of Margaret Thatcher’s reign as Prime Minister from 1979-90 to be made available to scholars, researchers and the general public – alongside the papers of Sir Winston Churchill and hundreds of other leading figures at the Churchill Archives Centre.

As well as Lady Thatcher’s papers surrounding the Bruges speech in September 1988, her personal papers also reveal the emergence of plans for a possible fourth term in office, with no obvious end to Thatcherism in sight at that point.

However, 1988 was not without its problems as the government experienced a large number of backbench rebellions on controversial measures, including many with manifesto authority. When Thatcher met with the Executive of the 1922 Committee in January, she was warned that one of the things they wanted to raise with her was the ‘problem of a large majority in the House of Commons and an inadequate Opposition, leading the government being perceived as dictatorial and insensitive to criticism’.

“Unsurprisingly, when this point was indeed made to her face, Thatcher made an indignant response,” said Collins. “There followed a series of rebellions over benefits and the poll tax which she took very personally as relationships with the Conservative parliamentary party frayed.”

Away from frontline politics, the archives for 1988 also reveal that her husband Denis went through a showbiz reception guest list with a fine tooth-comb, querying whether certain celebrities such as Paul McCartney and David Attenborough should be invited to Number 10 for a gathering of those who would be easily recognised by the public and do Mrs Thatcher much good on TV.

̽��ֱ��original list of 45 personalities was too low on numbers thought Lady Thatcher and a much longer list of more than 200 names was drawn up by former culture secretary, John Whittingdale – then political secretary to the Prime Minister.

“He (Whittingdale) was not the grizzled elder statesman of the present day,” said Collins. “This was the young man whose evening was spent watching Meatloaf at the Hammersmith Odeon and whose idea of a good party was to invite Paul McCartney, Freddie Mercury and the Jaggers.

Whittingdale, perhaps, did not count on the scrutinous eye of Denis Thatcher – who attacked the proposed guest list with no small amount of red ink, marking ticks against those he ‘would personally like to see included’ and question marks beside ‘those who, I believe, do not help'.

He went on to say: “Whilst I accept of course that not everyone who comes to our receptions are necessarily on ‘our’ side I find it both unpleasant and embarrassing to entertain those who publicly insult the PM. This list needs some careful checking in this regard.”

His favourite name of those listed was comedian Eric Sykes who gained an expansive four ticks. Others to receive enthusiastic backing from Denis included Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Dame Judi Dench, Nick Faldo and Rolf Harris.

McCartney and Attenborough were not alone in having question marks placed next to their name. Sebastian Coe, Shirley Bassey and magician Paul Daniels all fell foul of Denis’ red pen.

In the end, the longer guest list was dropped in favour of the original 45 and the British Winter Olympic Squad – minus Eddie ‘ ̽��ֱ��Eagle’ Edwards, who was double booked and unable to attend.

Margaret Thatcher’s infamous Bruges speech – which helped to coin the phrase ‘Euroscepticism’ – was never intended to be an anti-European diatribe, according to newly-released archive material by the Churchill Archives Centre and the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

When you read her papers for 1988, you see her sheer level of enthusiasm for the single market.

Chris Collins

Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Opinion: UK research in troubled political times

ag236 — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:39:07 +0000

̽��ֱ��clock is ticking for the UK in terms of research funding from the EU.

Horizon 2020, the current framework programme, has provided an increasingly important source of funds for universities in the UK. Until recently, despite the uncertainties surrounding the UK’s preparations to withdraw from the EU, UK-based researchers were still being encouraged to apply for H2020 funding. But earlier this month an explicit warning shot was fired across the researchers’ bows. Now, although UK-based researchers are still able to apply, there is the qualification that “the eligibility criteria must be complied with for the entire duration of the grant.” As things stand, the key eligibility criterion that is likely to fail to be met after the 29th March 2019 concerns researchers’ mobility.

No one should be in any doubt that the EU is prepared to enforce this ruling. It did it before when Switzerland’s own referendum meant that workers from Croatia were not freely able to enter the country, and it took quite a lot of fudging to resolve that. Switzerland, like the UK, is one of the most successful of countries when it comes to EU science funding. ̽��ֱ��country was really keen to find a work-around to enable them to be fully eligible for Horizon 2020 funding, and the issue was resolved relatively swiftly. It would be nice to think that a similar degree of pragmatism might apply to save the UK’s scientific research bacon, but it isn’t clear that this will happen.

Whether the UK can retain access to the Horizon2020 programme –and if so, on what terms— is just one tiny part of the intricate Brexit negotiations. ̽��ֱ��importance of EU funding for research does appear to have impinged on some ministers’ minds. It does get talked about. But mobility of researchers is a tricky problem, because worker mobility was such a central plank in the referendum campaigns.

Immigration is an emotive subject, and it is hard to envisage a scheme that enabled scientists to travel across EU borders freely while preventing other workers from sharing that luxury. It isn’t at all clear that mobility restricted to researchers would be sufficient to satisfy the EU, and thus ensure that the UK was still eligible.

As a member of the European Research Council’s Scientific Council I am very aware of the importance of ERC funding (a key part of the Horizon 2020 programme). ̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge hosts more ERC grants than any other university in Europe. It currently manages 209 grants, representing a substantial slice of the total research funding the ̽��ֱ�� receives.

It isn’t only the pure financial worth that matters, but also the prestige associated with winning such funding. Those who believe that all will be resolved if the UK government can find some funding to plug the gap in science research budgets if/when the UK is excluded from the programme, ignore this crucial point. (‘Science’ in this case should be recognized as encompassing not just the natural sciences and engineering, but also the social sciences and arts and humanities). No existing national scheme within the UK confers equivalent prestige – at promotions and appointments committees for instance – as an ERC grant. It is hard to see a purely national scheme ever doing so.

Of course, the consequences of Brexit do not simply relate to money. There are huge implications for the people whose futures will be immediately and directly affected through their specific status as citizens. ̽��ֱ��uncertainty, and accompanying anxiety, is huge. Individuals and families from other EU states do not know what their rights will be. Some are walking away already, not applying from the mainland continent as jobs open up in the UK, or choosing not to stay at the end of one contract even if opportunities are open to them.

As the deadline of March 2019 approaches, we do not know how individuals will weigh up the pros and cons of staying in the UK in what may feel like an increasingly hostile environment. Nor do we know how they will feel about not knowing what steps they might have to take to enable them to continue to live here— regardless of how long they have already been resident. Individual decisions will no doubt be decided by individual circumstances; some may feel it preferable to stay (or to come) as it is the best short-term way of meeting their career aspirations.

But science thrives on easy mobility, the exchange of ideas facilitated by the exchange of people, specific technical skills transmitted by the hands that practise them. It has to be expected that the UK’s leading role in science, where we punch far above our weight, is likely to be significantly and negatively impacted by the loss of easy researcher mobility.

Finally, there is the question of what happens to student numbers. Calculations suggest some universities, including Cambridge, are not likely to see a dip in income from student fees even though it is expected that the numbers of EU students will drop substantially.

One of the ironies in this process is that, had the Home Office been willing to remove international students from the immigration figures before the referendum, the result may well have gone the other way: with students excluded, official “immigration” numbers would have appeared lower. Even now, there remains an official determination to retain students in the immigration figures –despite it being so hard to find anyone (from any party) exhibiting much enthusiasm for doing so.

All in all, universities are facing uncertain times. As a member of a sector that has brought much wealth and prestige to the UK, and attracted students and researchers from around the world to enjoy our first class labs, libraries and lectures, it is deeply depressing to watch our strengths being challenged in ways it is not easy to address.

Cambridge has for decades been a truly international university and we will no doubt continue to thrive as such, however much the composition of its membership may change. But to see our funding, our staff and students being so immediately affected by political decisions taken elsewhere is a major concern.

*Professor Dame Athene Donald is Master of Churchill College.This text is based on her Sir Hermann Bondi Lecture, delivered on 23 October as part of the Cambridge Festival of Ideas.

As Brexit negotiations appear to stall, Professor Dame Athene Donald considers the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from EU research schemes.

It would be nice to think that, as with Switzerland, pragmatism might save the UK’s research bacon, but it isn’t clear this will happen.

Professor Athene Donald

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: Macron’s European trap

ag236 — Wed, 10 May 2017 15:53:06 +0000

By any account, the French presidential election that ended last Sunday was extraordinary. ̽��ֱ��run-off in the second round was between two political ‘outsiders’: Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron. In the first round, the mainstream left and right candidates came fifth and third respectively, with the far left Jean-Luc Mélenchon coming in way ahead of the Socialist Party candidate, Benoît Hamon. Many voters only decided late on who they would vote for, making this one of the most volatile elections on record.

̽��ֱ��scandals affecting the centre-right candidate, François Fillon, overshadowed the campaign and relegated debates about political programmes into second place. In the run-up to last Sunday’s second round vote, a fierce argument raged – especially on the left – about the rights and wrongs of abstaining or spoiling one’s ballot paper. Political celebrities – such as the Greek former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis – weighed in, urging French doubters to vote for Macron because “he is all that stands in between France and the fascism of Marine Le Pen”.

In the end, one in four of registered voters either stayed away last Sunday or spoilt their ballot paper. What prevailed in the second round was the logic of lesser evil – voting for a candidate that is ‘not as bad’ as another – which goes some way to explaining the sombre tone of Macron’s victory speech on Sunday night at the Louvre in Paris.

For all the novelty, Macron’s election victory points to one important continuity: France’s complicated relationship with the rest of the European Union and its place within the Eurozone.

When François Hollande was campaigning for the French presidency in 2012, it was the height of the Eurozone crisis with jobless figures reaching record levels and France’s economy in deep trouble. Aware of the opposition to austerity policies within France, Hollande promised to take on the German government. He would discuss “firmly and amicably” with Ms Merkel and impress upon her the need for a new ‘growth pact’ for the Eurozone. His growth pact included proposals for Eurobonds to finance infrastructure spending and a transactions tax to fund development programs. His efforts came to nothing and the idea of a “growth pact” disappeared without a trace.

Something similar is happening today. Last Monday, a day after the French election, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech where she insisted that Macron’s victory would not change German policy in Europe. ̽��ֱ��German position is clear: France must reform its economy first, and bring its budget deficits well within the Eurozone’s rules, before there is any discussion on Eurozone reform. Even then, it is very unlikely that anything that was contained in Macron’s programme – creation of a Eurozone parliament, a Eurozone budget and a Eurozone finance minister – will see the light of day. Such changes would require treaty reform that national governments say is out of the question. Referendums have left European governments so bruised that they are unwilling to risk putting treaty changes to the vote.

There is an irony here. Macron has been an openly pro-European candidate, regularly waving the European flag and taking the Ode to Joy – the EU’s ‘anthem’ – as his own campaign song. And yet, this very pro-Europeanism is what will most constrain a Macron presidency.

Most likely as a first step is that Macron will be pushed into cutting budgets and reforming labour markets, doing so possibly by decree given the history of opposition to such measures. In exchange, he may get some mild reforms of the functioning of the Eurozone but ones that fall short of any need for ratification through referendum or by national parliaments. This outcome may be part of Macron’s strategy, where the rigidity of the Eurozone’s rules is used as a means of pushing economic reforms onto France. Either way, the bigger difficulties, to do with structural imbalances of the Eurozone, will remain untouched.

A problem Macron has never confronted is that his promises to transform France’s national growth model are made within a context where Eurozone membership which makes such a change almost impossible. Macron’s election was extraordinary in many respects but his experience of life inside the Eurozone is likely to be rather more run of the mill.

Chris Bickerton is lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations (POLIS) and a fellow of Queens’ College, Cambridge

Despite its novelty, Emmanuel Macron's election victory in France points to one important continuity, argues Dr Chris Bickerton.

There is an irony here. Macron has been an openly pro-European candidate, yet this pro-Europeanism is what will most constrain a Macron presidency.

Chris Bickerton

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Listen: Cambridge experts talk post-Brexit options for the UK

fpjl2 — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:02:30 +0000

̽��ֱ��one day workshop was run by the Centre For Business Research (CBR) and the Cambridge Public Policy Strategic Research Initiative. On the day, the CBR's Boni Sones sat down with some of the experts to get their take on the major issues facing Brexit Britain. You can listen to their conversations below:

Prof Simon Deakin: Social policy post Brexit and workers’ rights

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Centre For Business Research. He specialises in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences.

To what extent we remain outside the Single Market is going to be a matter of degree. ̽��ֱ��current government’s decision for a deep and comprehensive trade agreement actually takes us back in to much of the single market, and we will be bound going forward to single market rules.”
Simon Deakin

Dr Kirsty Hughes: ̽��ֱ��right to remain of EU nationals

Kirsty Hughes is a ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Law specialising in Human Rights and Public Law. She lectures on Civil Liberties, European Human Rights Law and Constitutional Law among other areas, and has a forthcoming book on Privacy Theory.

̽��ֱ��suggestion that residency can be used in withdrawal negotiations does seem to be overstating matters given that residency is preserved under human rights law. It will be unlawful for us to expel EU nationals, and given therefore that it would be unlawful it seems particularly insensitive and unfair for EU nationals to be living in a state of uncertainty which is completely unnecessary.
Kirsty Hughes

You can read Dr Hughes's paper on the right to remain of EU nationals in full here.

Dr Michael Waibel: ̽��ֱ��financial cost to the UK of leaving the EU

Michael Waibel is a ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer and Deputy-Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. He researches economic law with a particular focus on finance and the settlement of international disputes.

̽��ֱ��House of Lords’ assessment as a backdrop to these Brexit negotiations is that there is no legal liability. In purely legal terms I think the House of Lords has got it wrong. ̽��ֱ��UK is in principle liable for a share of the EU’s budget commitments that the UK made as a member of the EU.
Michael Waibel

You can read Dr Waibel's paper on the financial cost of leaving the EU in full here.

Dr Lorand Bartels: ̽��ֱ��WTO option

Lorand Bartels is a Reader in International Law, and teaches international law, WTO law and EU law. He was appointed as a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on International Trade at the end of last year.

I think legally nothing changes, in terms of the underlying rules and rights and obligations. At the moment the government’s position, and I think it is absolutely correct, is that the UK has existing rights and obligations in the WTO but you don’t see them at the moment because it is exercised via the EU.
Lorand Bartels

Dr Graham Gudgin: A critique of treasury estimates of the impact of Brexit

Graham Gudgin is currently Research Associate at Cambridge's Centre For Business Research and part-time Senior Economic Advisor with Oxford Economics. He has been a Special Adviser to the Northern Ireland First Minister on economic policy.

Over the past 15 years we have created about 3 million extra jobs in the UK, but that has been associated with a rise of about 85 per cent of people born from abroad, and a high proportion of these work on or at the minimum wage. That is not great for productivity...
Graham Gudgin

Prof David Howarth: ̽��ֱ��UK Constitution, the White Paper and the proposed Repeal Act

David Howarth is a Professor of Law and Public Policy in the Department of Land Economy. He served as the Member of Parliament for Cambridge between 2005 and 2010.

A lot of this process is far too short. Designing and drafting new law is not easy. It can’t be done by amateurs, it can’t be done by politicians on the hoof on the floor of the House of Commons. It needs to be thought through and there is just not enough time to think it through.
David Howarth

Dr Martin Steinfeld: ̽��ֱ��Free Movement of People and EU law

Martin Steinfeld is an Affiliated Lecturer in EU law. He was previously a barrister at the Chancery Bar and worked at both the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

There are many rights that EU citizens exercising their rights to free movement have had for many years. That is a matter for huge discussion on a domestic level in terms of what pieces of legislation may or may not flow to replicate the rights they already have.
Martin Steinfeld

Prof Catherine Barnard, Prof John Bell and Prof Brendan Simms: ̽��ֱ��White Paper; Brexit and Devolution; the Geopolitics of Brexit

Catherine Barnard is a Professor of European Union Law and Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe programme.
John Bell is a Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Public Law.
Brendan Simms is Professor in the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies.

̽��ֱ��actual logistics of disentangling ourselves from the EU are incredibly large and it will take a considerable period of time – certainly more than the two years the government thinks it can be done in.
Catherine Barnard

Dr Julian Ghosh: Brexit and our tax laws

Julian Ghosh is a QC and Bye-Fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge. His practice covers all areas of taxation. He is particularly well known for his corporate work and that involving European taxation issues.

[Business] could say you said we were subject to EU law previous to this date but this post two year date decision tells us what that law actually is, so see you in court. It is hopeless for the government and business.
Julian Ghosh

On 30 March, the day after the 'triggering' of Article 50 began the official Brexit process, a group of ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge lawyers, economists, historians and tax experts gathered in Peterhouse.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes