The EU still needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU

Second, and perhaps more important, the program is a bureaucratic nightmare with an increasingly dismal record on innovation as a consequence.

Europe is lagging behind in science and technology: the number of patents filed on the continent has fallen. In China, it is skyrocketing. The EU filed about 190,000 patent applications in 2021, compared to about 1.6 million for China and 600,000 for the US. The EU total was less than Japan’s.

Meanwhile, the continent is lagging behind in key areas like artificial intelligence, with much of the groundbreaking research being done in the US and China. And its ability to turn science into commercial projects has deteriorated.

Across the continent, there are few examples of universities investing research in new business in the way that Stanford, MIT and, increasingly, the leading universities in Shanghai and Beijing do.

We can be sure that the Horizon program is an integral part of those who have lobbied for us to join, but this is not confirmed by the actual results.

Funding science is a worthwhile endeavor. But should it be overseen by a group of unelected EU technocrats? Or would they risk backing those who can game the system rather than the true innovators? Could you support EU scientists and projects aligned with EU policies and priorities, rather than those based on Brexit Britain?

It is not uncommon for these types of programs to favor certain areas, or distribute money based on credentials or past connections.

This can be done at the expense of projects that are more interesting or original. Committees often like to play it safe; but the best scientific developments can be radical and alchemistic.

Outside the EU, the UK needs to create and improve new industries based on science and technology if it is to prosper.

There’s nothing wrong with rejoining Horizon. But we need to be careful how it’s done and make sure the money is well spent.

The government had previously agreed that if UK researchers received less than 12% of what the UK invested, we could terminate the agreement. The figure for other associate members is 8 per cent, and the ministers here are right to want to reduce this discrepancy.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has said that Sunak is interested in seeking “value for money for taxpayers”, and he is absolutely right.

The suggested UK contribution of £2 billion a year is not negligible. We should ask ourselves if, instead of handing large amounts of money to Brussels, we could support the mavericks on British soil, at our universities and beyond.