The eve of the new academic year is a key moment for students across the higher and further education sectors to take a more active role in the Brexit debate. As things stand right now, future cohorts of students are at risk of being excluded from the networks of educational and cultural exchange facilitated by the EU, argues Claire Gordon (LSE Teaching and Learning Centre). LSE’s Generation Brexit project is a platform for young people to take to the figurative barricades over Brexit, and make their voices heard regarding the future of UK-EU relations.
Depending on how the negotiations go, students starting degree programmes this autumn will graduate in three years’ time into a different country – with the UK outside the European Union and possibly, if the preferences of some members of the Government are realised, outside the Single Market and Customs Union without the right to live and work across Europe. At the same time, future cohorts of students are at risk of being excluded from the networks of educational and cultural exchange which have enriched their education and resulted in transformative learning experiences for so many. Is this a future that students in a 21st century globally connected economy and society want to walk into without having a more active say?
The outcome of the referendum vote took many by surprise and certainly caught the broader higher education and research sector off guard (90% of which voted remain). Though the 64% turnout among young people (aged 18-24), the majority of whom voted to remain, was not as low as initially thought, this was trumped by the 90% turnout among the over-65s as demonstrated by research conducted by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison.
The general election in May was characterized by some commentators as a ‘youthquake’ – a ‘shout-back’ against the older generation making decisions about the future of the young in a context in which the generational contract at heart of the UK welfare state has become increasingly frayed. Of course, we should resist overly simplified explanations about the election result. Nonetheless, some of the frustrations expressed in the increased voter turnout among young people were clearly a response to the 52% who voted leave — which amounted to only 37% of the electorate (given the 72% turnout) — effecting a constitution-changing decision. Nor did this include the voice of 16 or 17-year-olds that many parties, including Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and the Greens, believed should have had the right to vote. But expressing voice at a general election once every five years (or so) is clearly not enough to have a substantive impact on the EU negotiations.
The NUS President made a strong pro-European statement the day after the referendum.
“This is clearly not the result that many young people wanted or voted for, but most important now is to ensure that students and young people are involved in the decisions that have to be made that will shape their future.” NUS president, Megan Dunn, Friday 24 June 2016
Sorana Vieru, NUS Education Officer (2016-2017) gave oral evidence to the Education Select Committee (ESC) Hearing at UCL on January 25, 2017 underlining NUS’s support for removing international students from the net migration targets. She also highlighted the value that EU students bring — ‘challeng[ing] perspectives, enrich[ing] the overall university experience and help[ing] home students develop new views.’ In addition, a number of students who have participated in Erasmus study and work placement programmes submitted written evidence to the ESC emphasizing the cultural and democratic citizenship values that for them lie at the heart of membership in the EU community. Charles Hewitt noted ‘The Erasmus programme…has helped me establish connections and feel part of a wider European community…The EU is not only a symbol of inclusiveness but also support for one another in times of need’. Meanwhile Alice Holden observed ‘There is no better way to gain an understanding and appreciation of the other culture…Unfortunately there has been a reported rise in xenophobia, but if more students could benefit from a period of time spent abroad, this would help combat this.’ Such views have also been echoed by the European Students’ Union.
The voice of young people has been surprisingly absent from the post-referendum Brexit debate.
As Anne Corbett has observed and this was also underlined in the LSE Commission on Higher Education and Research where students were among the rare witnesses to stress, above and beyond crucial economic issues, the importance of the democratic values and civic rights including freedom of movement fostered by EU membership. And yet the student voice, and the voice of young people more widely, has been surprisingly absent from the post-referendum Brexit debate during the lead-up and commencement of negotiations. Not only on the future of higher and further education but also in terms of the broader debate about the nature of Britain’s future social, cultural and economic relations with Europe. There is a lot left to play for.
Why is this an opportune moment?
There are a number of reasons why the start of the new academic year is an opportune moment for students and young people to up the ante. As students return or take up their places in institutions of education, Brexit negotiations are well underway though little apparent progress has been made. The government has yet to publish a position paper on higher education and research. Secondly, while the Prime Minister has sought to characterize the Brexit vote as a vote on immigration and doggedly insisted on keeping students as part of UK migration figures, the situation is clearly far more complex than this would suggest. Last week new data suggested that the Government has been (some would suggest knowingly) using the student immigration figures. In fact, fewer than 5,000 students a year stay on after their visas expire, which is a mere 3% of the relevant student population. Furthermore, it has been clear for quite some time that the public believes that genuine students should be kept apart from immigration policy.
Meanwhile, on the opposition Labour benches, there has been movement in the party’s Brexit position with the Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer signaling a clear shift to support for a softer Brexit involving at the very least membership of the single market and the customs unions for a transitional period. The growing differentiation between the government with all the apparent inconsistencies in its approach to the Brexit negotiations and the opposition surely provides an opportunity for students to enter the debate.
There is still no clarity on the rights of students to study, work and live within the UK or across the EU after the UK exits.
What is at stake here?
Fifteen months on there is still no clarity on the rights of students to study, work and live within the UK or across the EU after the UK exits. Instead of construing students (and EU citizens more broadly) as bargaining chips, this is an issue that could have been put to bed before the negotiations started – a gesture of good will, giving clear assurances to students at the very least (if not EU citizens currently working in the country). Nor would this have been pure gesture politics. The evidence of the advantages for students from learning, studying and developing knowledge and skills in a diverse, inclusive educational environment is resoundingly clear. All students benefit from learning in international classrooms with fellow students from diverse educational and cultural backgrounds taught by academics from across Europe and the world. UK Universities has also presented convincing evidence of the broader economic and societal contribution of international students to the UK, EU students making up just under a third of these students.
There was a 5% drop in applications from EU students to UK universities this academic year.
Immediately following the Brexit vote there was anecdotal evidence of students rethinking their decision to study and seek future employment in the UK, students exploring other opportunities and locations to pursue their studies. A year on there is some concrete evidence to underpin these claims. There was a 5% drop in applications from EU students to UK universities this academic year and the UK, while still popular has dropped, a few places in terms in the popularity stakes of places to study with students highlighting concerns around raised fees as well as the UK appearing a less welcoming place. Of course, this is as yet only a snapshot and too early to evidence a clear trend but it is telling nonetheless.
Students and young people should take the initiative now by (i) developing a clear set of demands both on the terms of the divorce as well as the basis of future relations with the EU; (ii) opening up concrete channels of dialogue with their university and college leaderships, some of whom are in direct discussion with government; (iii) making representations to student and university associations in the UK and across Europe, and (iv) influencing the public debate and negotiations through capitalizing on the possibilities offered by social media. LSE’s Generation Brexit project is one example of an endeavour facilitating many of the above. It offers a platform for young people, to take to the figurative barricades over Brexit, and make their voices heard regarding the future of UK-EU relations.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE.
Dr Claire Gordon is Head of LSE’s Teaching and Learning Centre.
“Though the 64% turnout among young people (aged 18-24), the majority of whom voted to remain, was not as low as initially thought, this was trumped by the 90% turnout among the over-65s as demonstrated.”
If you wish to pose as an academic please show some professionalism and get simple facts like this right.
The Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison showed that 64% of those YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WERE REGISTERED actually voted and likewise 90% of those over 65 who were registered. Studies by the electoral commission show that younger people are considerably less likely to be registered. Indeed the raw data for the Ashcroft report suggests that this effect is so large that more old people than young people voted Remain.
Remain supporters like to think that Leave voters are less educated and are less likely to have professional careers. It would be interesting to know the characteristics of those young people who did not vote and what would have happened if the turnout amongst younger people was higher.
Thank you for publishing my comment. On reflection, I was probably being too strident but it reflects my frustration that certain pro-Remain organisations have deliberately put out misleading information and that information is then propagated by those who should perhaps know better.
The most damaging instance is the Ashcroft report which included a graph showing the proportions of people in each age group that voted Remain and Leave. They made the bars the same length but they could have shown bars of different length which reflected the numbers who actually voted in each age group (as best as they could tell from their data). They are professionals and they should have known better. They could have put two pieces of information in their graphs rather than just one but they chose not to because they were in the game of propaganda rather than being informative. If you look at their raw survey data then one of the most prominent features of the data is the variation in voting rate with age, yet they didn’t mention this at all in their report.
My frustration also arises from the hostile comments that have been directed towards older people. The rules of the BBC and other websites is that racism, sexism, homophobia are (rightly) disallowed but you can be as offensive as you like to old people and that is perfectly OK.
You need to put this in context, people of my generation were not given the right to vote on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. We had to wait 24 years for the right to express our opinions and now we are told we are too old to count. In effect a 65 year old person voting in last year’s referendum was in fact a 41 year old who has been waiting 24 years to vote!
It is interesting to note that the leaders of the three main UK political parties (Labour, Tories, Lib Dems) are currently all over 60 years old. This is no doubt a statistical fluke, but it has occurred at the worst possible time.
Certainly, following from the comment piece above, the three main political parties must take care to ensure that all age groups are equally treated in any deliberations on Brexit.
The current government is prepared to override constitutional principle, ignore public opinion, and claim that a narrow victory in a disgracefully defective referendum campaign settles the matter forever. This is not a government which is inclusive, or listens, or has a vision or so much as a clue.
The legacy for the young, from my own baby boomer generation, is a glorious combination of the financial crisis, student debt, rampant wealth and income inequality to match anywhere in the developed world, a broken economic model devoid of fairness or any sound values, a housing market beyond the reach of many, the prospect of working harder and longer to support the people who put them in that position in the first place, austerity, failing public services for want of proper funding (on account of Bad taxation policy), and with the current government, the prospect of more of the same.
And now, most gloriously of all, Brexit, which will isolate our country for years while it flies its free trade flag in an increasingly protectionist world, getting nowhere fast. It’s a mystery to some of us why the young are not shouting in the streets, mounting the barricades, marching to Parliament, and demanding to be heard.
The future belongs to the young and not to the most selfish generation in modern history. For pity’s sake, get out there and change the world.
We were eventually “allowed” to have our say on our membership of the EU (which we never voted for” and those who wanted to leave were the majority, so I fail to see how this “overrides” constitutional principle or ignores public opinion. The fact that the vote to leave was a “narrow victory” is completely irrelevant and referring to the referendum campaign as disgracefully defective just sounds like sour grapes, rather than a statement of fact. To imply that, in some way, this current administration and generation is totally responsible for wealth and income inequality is ludicrous and why should the taxpayer be expected to fund students attending university, other countries rightly expect those to going on to higher education to fund their own studies.
Our public services are unable to meet the demand that mass immigration has placed on them and they do need proper funding which is not “on account of bad taxation” but because we fritter away £13+billion a year on so called overseas aid, as well as propping up the EU.
You may have missed the fact that the Government sought to trigger art.50 without Parliamentary approval, and when defeated in the Divisional Court, took the matter to the Supreme Court, where it inevitably lost, thereby wasting time and money. You may also have missed the fact that there is a whole lot of obfuscation around what, if anything, is actually happening in the Brexit negotiations. Business and Parliament and the whole world is demanding clarity. The constitutional principle at stake is the supremacy of Parliament, which must not be prejudiced by the secrecy of government. The WIthdrawal Bill contains Henry VIII clauses, and these cut across constitutional principle, in the absence of sufficient safeguards. .It is also essential that Parliament is sufficiently informed in order for meaningful debate to take place. You may believe that Parliament will be given sufficient notice and time to consider any final deal, rather than being presented with a fait accompli, but some of us have some difficulty with that given the government’s track record to date. Parliamentary sovereignty means rather more than government doing precisely what it wants on the basis that it represents “the will of the people”. The will of the people isn’t set in stone either, and a binary choice does not provide answers to so many questions which now arise. . Opinion changes and society changes. We live in a representative democracy, where Parliament has sovereignty..That is the consitutional principle.
I don’t know how old you are Karl, but I certainly voted in the 1975 referendum. For my generation, last year’s referendum was not the first opportunity, But it was for the young, and they, who will be most affected, voted overwhelmingly to remain, whilst my generation voted overwhelmingly to leave.So I’m not quite sure what your point is.I know what mine was.
By common consensus, last year’s referendum was defective because it was so badly run by both sides, and characterised by spin and lies.rather than fact. If you think that isn’t so, you are in a minority. It doesn’t follow that because you liked the result, the means by which it was obtained was right, or should be repeated in the future. In any other country, a referendum with such momentous consequences would have been better considered, and because it was of such constitutional importance, it would have required a 66% majority for change. If you don’t believe that, then look at history. .
Wealth and income inequality, which in themselves dwarf Brexit in importance, are caused by a failed economic model,which encourages short termism, eg in the form of shareholder returns; lack of investment in technology and skills; and bad employment practices.The interm report from the Commission for Economic Justice, published recently, describes the problems and the history. In any event, the general point I was making is that that my generation has enjoyed the best of everything, but we leave a poor legacy for the young. See how many young people you can find who disagree with that. . .
I quote from a major report from the LSE, last year, on the impact of EU immigration on public services:
“The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in public services and therefore they help to reduce the budget deficit.
“So, far from being a necessary evil that we pay to get access to the greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single market, immigration is at worse neutral and at best, another economic benefit.”
Our taxation is bad for a number of reasons, not least because what we need for public services is not met by our receipts ” Public spending as a percentage of GDP is around 40 per cent, around the developed world average. Yet, government receipts are around 37 per cent of GDP, and at around 33 per cent of GDP UK taxation is considerably lower than the average for comparable economies” .
This might be a better explanation than blaming immigration.
Brexit is immensely complex, and a single nation such as the UK will find it very difficult to command good deals, largely in services, because protectionism is on the rise, the most significant trade deals are made by trading blocs which have the muscle to command good deals, and comprehensive deals take many years to negotiate, particularly where they relate to services. Some of us wonder where this brave new Brexit world is. We have an unbalanced economy, poor productivity, and under investment. It’s not a good start. Fixing the model first would have been a good idea, just like holding a general election before triggering art 50 might have been a wiser course of action.. .
.
Probably best for us to agree to disagree.We inhabit different worlds. I remain of the view that the young have every reason to be disenchanted with my generation, and to protest and seek change. . .