Fanatics who want no-deal Brexit and remainers who refuse to compromise are risking science and the UK’s future in the process, says Nobel prizewinning physicist Andre Geim

Andre Geim is a physicist at the University of Manchester, UK. He was a recipient of the 2010 Nobel prize in physics for his discovery of graphene Colin McPherson/Alamy Stock Photo

The UK is at war, a cold civil war. Even many scientists, who are supposed to be smart and are among the most affected by it, fail to fully appreciate the consequences. This is because we live inside our societal bubbles, either supporting or loathing Brexit. Compromise has become a dirty word even for the very people who praise their flexibility and openness.

We need to snap out of this mindset. If we don’t, things are only going to get worse, especially for UK science.

I voted remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum because I have lived and worked in many European countries and simply feel European. As a scientist, I cannot possibly appreciate the importance of keeping the imperial units some backward-looking Brexiteer “Mogglodytes” treasure. So I am alright when people have derided me as an “ungrateful immigrant” since I have made my views clear. On the other hand, I cannot support calls for a second referendum. That has led some remainers to express their “deep discontent with my lack of vision”.


Why is my personal compromise so hard to understand? I am no longer against Brexit, only because I am against the disorderly version of it we’re now sleepwalking into. Maybe the problem is that I am too much of a researcher for my own good. I try to analyse things logically rather than emotionally.

Read more: Andre Geim on why graphene is the stuff of the future

Here is the logic bit. Imagine that the UK’s new prime minister Boris Johnson and the fanatic fringe push through a no-deal or similar Brexit on 31 October. Would this stop the civil war as many hope? No chance. The 48 per cent on the losing side of the referendum will continue to feel that their views and rights have been tossed aside, that they are being treated by the victors as prisoners of war. As for science, the likely economic hardship that will follow a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster, exacerbating the loss of EU funding.

You can appreciate how bad things are going to become by looking at the recent government announcement about speedy visas for top foreign scientists. The vice chancellors of some universities welcomed the move. I got only the chills. It was never hard for high-flying scientists to get work permits anywhere. The competition for the best minds is global and fierce. The countries that offer the best research opportunities and competitive funding win it, not those who offer the easiest visas.

So why did the prime minister focus on something that is nowhere near being a top priority for UK science? Because it is a promise that requires only hot air and not a penny. Spurring truly innovative scientific research of the sort that will contribute to the UK’s economic well-being requires a more far-sighted immigration policy and, most importantly, continuous funding at a level comparable to that in the US, Germany and other developed nations.

Read more: How two physicists won a Nobel prize using sticky tape and pencil

But imagine now that a divided Parliament blocks Brexit, calls a second referendum and remainers win, as many of my colleagues hope. What a nightmare. Even moderate Brexiteers will feel utterly betrayed. The cold war will become hotter: as big a disaster for the economy, and hence science, as any no-deal scenario.

We are in a terrible impasse. The lack of smart people listening to the needs of the country, let alone science, in our populist government terrifies me even more. Three years ago, the then prime minister Theresa May had a chance to make a truce between the warring parties. She could have offered to leave the EU, as the outcome of the referendum explicitly required, but also offer a follow-up referendum on leaving the common market or the customs union or both, the options never voted on.

Enacting this compromise now could lead to a well-informed vote and orderly Brexit, whatever the outcome of the second referendum. The economy could then evolve and adjust, and science and universities would be better prepared, too. This isn’t my ideal scenario, but a compromise in the search for a better outcome for science and the country.

Parliament returns from its summer recess on 3 September, with barely eight weeks to find a compromise. But all parties to the debate are just hardening their positions. It seems that only when the economy is in ruins and everyone is worn down will they be ready for a compromise – the way civil wars tend to end. The sooner we realise there will be no winners, the better. Optimism, even baseless, is always loved but helps only political careers. Compromises and U-turns are decried, but get things sorted.