Editor’s archive note: the anticipated no-deal outcome discussed in this article did not occur in 2019. The piece is retained as a record of the questions facing research organisations at that moment, rather than as a description of current funding arrangements.
Following the 2016 referendum, European research institutions faced a prolonged period of uncertainty about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. The issue reached beyond budgets: research depends on the movement of people, shared facilities, common rules and long-established working relationships.
At the time, the United Kingdom was a major participant in Horizon 2020. Its universities and research organisations worked throughout Europe on collaborative programmes, frequently coordinating multinational teams. The prospect of leaving the EU without an agreed framework therefore raised practical questions for institutions on both sides of the Channel.
Funding continuity and programme participation
Horizon 2020 funding supported research across disciplines, from investigator-led work to joint projects involving universities, public bodies and businesses. In a no-deal scenario, commitments made by the UK government were intended to provide financial reassurance to UK-based beneficiaries. Yet the operational detail remained uncertain: researchers needed to know how awards would be administered, reported and audited if established European Commission processes no longer applied.
The question was not simply whether money would be available. It was also whether a project could proceed without interruption, retain its agreed partners and meet the eligibility conditions built into programme rules. For consortia planning future calls, uncertainty could influence decisions about who would coordinate a bid and where key work would be based.
Collaboration depends on stable partnerships
Many European projects are designed around teams from several countries. Those networks carry expertise, infrastructure and local knowledge that cannot easily be replaced at short notice. In 2019, institutions were concerned that a change in the UK’s formal status could affect consortium composition or create additional administration for ongoing work.
Research collaboration has always extended beyond any one funding programme, but shared frameworks can make cooperation easier to establish and sustain. A no-deal outcome was expected to test those frameworks at precisely the point when teams were preparing proposals, recruiting staff and scheduling multi-year research.
Mobility, careers and the research environment
European research has been strengthened by researchers moving between countries at different stages of their careers. Fellowship schemes, doctoral networks and exchanges give early-career researchers access to new methods, mentors and facilities. During the negotiations, uncertainty around residence and future immigration arrangements made long-term planning more difficult for many people considering a move to or from the UK.
For research institutions, mobility is also a matter of capability. Laboratories and departments rely on being able to recruit internationally, and collaborative programmes benefit when partners can meet, train and work across borders. Any new barriers had the potential to affect not only individual choices but also the capacity of research teams.
Innovation and public value
The European research framework brought universities, public institutions and industry partners into the same programmes. This approach was intended to help promising ideas move from research settings towards wider use, while also building practical skills and connections for researchers.
In the 2019 debate, there was concern that reduced participation could weaken links between academic research and innovation programmes. Domestic funding could offer important support, but it would not automatically reproduce the international networks, shared calls and cross-sector relationships developed through European collaboration.
A wider European research community
The central argument of the period was that European research cooperation is broader than a single political settlement or funding instrument. Universities, laboratories and learned communities have long worked together through many international organisations and partnerships. That wider ecosystem would remain important whatever agreement emerged.
Looking back, the article records a moment when institutions were trying to preserve continuity while preparing for several possible outcomes. Its enduring lesson is that research partnerships require clear rules, reliable support and sustained attention to the people who make collaboration possible.