SIR – An impressive list of academics from the University of Cambridge write in favour of remaining in the European Union.
Their major concern is funding. It’s true that Cambridge may eventually lose a minority – about a quarter – of its total research funding in the event of Brexit. To suggest that this can’t be made up from other sources (including from our own government, once funds from Brussels are returned) shows a distinct lack of imagination. With relief from the bureaucratic process of EU grant application, there should be time enough to pursue other possibilities.
We believe instead there are higher values to take into account: freedom, democracy, accountability and legitimacy of government. It’s a little disappointing to see those at one of our foremost universities focusing only on the utilitarian.
Professor James Tooley
Dr Barrie Craven
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences
Newcastle upon Tyne
SIR – My 536 colleagues at Cambridge protest too much.
European Research Framework Programmes have been open to many countries outside the EU for a good many years. In recognition of the high quality of their research, Israel, Norway and Switzerland have long participated in EU research projects. The Eureka scheme, dedicated to industrial innovation, includes South Korea and Canada.
David Abulafia
Professor of Mediterranean History
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
SIR – If we vote to leave the EU, British pensioners living in Europe may find their pensions frozen and not uprated in line with inflation.
There are already half a million pensioners living in Commonwealth countries who are forced to live with this inequality, and there are no guarantees in place which protect British pensioners in the EU from the same fate.
We are in serious danger of creating a generation of pensioners who, faced with the impracticality of negotiating bilateral agreements with 27 EU countries, will be forced through hardship and poverty to leave their lives abroad and come home.
Roger Gale MP (Con)
Chairman, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen Pensions
Bourne End, Buckinghamshire
SIR – Many people appear to be ready to vote to remain in the EU because it is the “safe” option.
This suggests that the Leave campaign has not done enough to inform voters that there is no status quo. If the euro is to survive, the eurozone countries must move to fiscal and political union. Measures to achieve this could include budgetary restrictions and tax-raising measures, which could make life very uncomfortable for Britain in future.
W R McGill
Abinger Common, Surrey
SIR – The Remain side in the EU debate quotes economists and financial organisations on the economic risks of leaving, while the Leave side focuses on the future impact of migration.
Having to choose between these two issues is a zero-sum game, with multiple factors likely either to aggravate or soften the blow of leaving (or, for that matter, remaining).
What started as a plebiscite to appease the internal wrangling of the Conservatives has become something all societies should strive to avoid: partisan, noisy division. Let’s just hope it doesn’t become entrenched.
Professor Duncan French
University of Lincoln
SIR – William Hague urges both sides to accept the referendum result.
But how will that result be decided in the event of a tie? What majority – and how many recounts – will be needed for a “final” decision that both sides will respect?
Jeremy Thomas
Crowle, Worcestershire
