At the beginning of the year news arrived that caused some concerns and unease in the higher education sector on both sides of the English Channel. On 8 January, the British House of Commons rejected a motion to include a new clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill stating that the government would aim to secure full ongoing participation in Erasmus+ (the EU seven-year funding scheme for education, youth and sport) after Brexit. Some newspapers reported this in headlines such as: "The UK is stepping out of Erasmus!". But what was actually happening?
First of all, it must be noted that a country does not necessarily have to be a member of the European Union in order to take on the status of an Erasmus+ Program Country. European Economic Area (EEA) countries such as Norway and Iceland, but also candidate countries such as Serbia and Turkey belong to the group of the Erasmus+ Program Countries and thus share the same rights, privileges and responsibilities with regard to their participation in the Erasmus+ Program with the EU Member States. To a limited extent, this also applies to Switzerland, which is not an Erasmus+ Program Country, but has practically bought itself into individual modules of the program.
In principle, the UK can participate in after Brexit, whatever a final deal looks like. However, a prerequisite for remaining in Erasmus+ is that the British government makes a binding decision not only to prioritise this topic, but also provides the required funds to compensate for the budget share that had been charged on the EU budget as long as the UK has been a EU member.
The Conservative majority and its leader Boris Johnson have always expressed their commitment to continuing the tried-and-tested student mobility and to remain in the Erasmus+ program and have reconfirmed this commitment only recently. However, whether this commitment will become a reality or not depends crucially on the extent to which the long list of topics to be negotiated with the EU can be worked through in the coming months, especially since the Prime Minister is known to categorically exclude the extension of the transition period (when the UK is outside the EU, but still EU Law applies), which would be instrumental for concluding an agreement on the future relations with the European Union beyond 31 December 2020.
It is also clear that there are other topics that are higher up on the list of priorities than student mobility and Erasmus+. These include above all the topics of security, counter-terrorism and trade. The motion brought to the House of Commons by the oppositional Liberal Democrats on 8 January was aimed to somehow 'upgrade' higher education mobility in general and Erasmus+ in particular on this list of priorities in the heart of the Withdrawal Bill. This motion was rejected by the governing majority.
So you could rightly say that this vote in the House of Commons had absolutely changed nothing. The status quo ante continues to apply. So why bother? It is not surprising that the acting Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the Tory Chris Skidmore, expressed himself in precisely this sense.
However, there is one problem. Who, one could ask, can guarantee at this point that the given timeframe and political will will actually be sufficient to accomplish the work that has to be done within the remaining time? Indeed, 'upgrading' Erasmus+ on the list of priorities, as the opposition intended, would have been a good way to dispel some doubts. But even if the relevant contractual agreements would be concluded in good time, it is by no means guaranteed that the UK authorities will at the end of the day be able to provide the money to make the necessary compensation payments. Nothing goes without money. It can already be heard that the funds could come from the universities' budgets or could be provided by private foundations. But that would make the UK not only a second class, but third class Erasmus+ partner: putting the UK in a position not only inferior to Norway and Turkey, but also to Switzerland.
The AEC member institutions from the UK are now faced with the task of putting pressure on their government in order to establish a political and legal framework making sure that precisely this scenario can be avoided. There are many ways to support our British colleagues in this effort. Let's do what we can!
