Watching Universities UK carefully marshal its evidence and arguments before becoming a leading voice in the EU referendum ¡°yes¡± campaign is a bit like watching someone have a manicure before getting into a bare-knuckle fist fight. It looks nice, but I¡¯m not sure how much good it will do them.

The likely tone of the EU referendum debate, given that immigration and national identity will be major topics, may leave UUK¡¯s Universities for Europe campaign struggling to be heard.

For an insight into the ¡°no¡± campaign, Dominic Cummings¡¯ is worth a read. Cummings, a former adviser to Michael Gove who describes himself as ¡°helping establish some foundations¡± for the ¡°no¡± campaign rather than running it, calls for ¡°huge discipline, simplification, and focus¡±.

I¡¯ve looked at what a Brexit could mean for the UK¡¯s universities in a feature out today, for which I interviewed figures ranging from a Ukip MEP to Jos¨¦ Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission until 2014.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

One of the main messages I took away from the interview with Barroso, now a visiting professor at Princeton University, was his clear warning that a Brexit would have consequences for UK universities. ¡°I believe that if the UK is no longer a member of the EU, there will certainly be a loss of research funding,¡± he said, adding there would also be ¡°damage to faculty and student mobility¡±.

Barroso isn¡¯t entertaining any notion that the UK could become an ¡°associated country¡±, like Norway or Israel, and still join in with the EU¡¯s research programmes (but then you wouldn¡¯t expect him to).

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The EU¡¯s treatment of Switzerland after a 2014 referendum backed restrictions on freedom of movement is seen by some observers as a lesson on the problems of ¡°associated country¡± status and as a direct warning to the UK. Following the vote, the EU suspended talks with Switzerland over its participation as an associated country in Horizon 2020, the EU¡¯s research programme, and Erasmus+, its student mobility scheme.

¡°Sometimes we only give value to things when we lose them,¡± Barroso said of that episode. It¡¯s hard not to see a message to the UK there.

For every argument that universities will make on the benefits of EU membership, there is a counterargument that will be made by a vociferous ¡°no¡± campaign ¨C and the feature goes through these on issues from research funding to staff and student mobility. Emran Mian also went through many of the counterarguments in a good about universities and the EU referendum campaign. I filed my piece several weeks ago before Emran¡¯s blog came out (we¡¯re very painstaking in editing and designing our features at Times Higher Education), but I was glad to see we were looking at similar issues.

The big argument that UUK will make is that EU-backed research has real benefits for people in this country, benefits that we just couldn¡¯t replicate with replacement national research funding. Martin Widschwendter, professor of women¡¯s cancer at University College London, made that argument when I talked to him about his EU-funded project to develop a test predicting women¡¯s risks of cancers. But it¡¯s an argument that the ¡°no¡± campaign will challenge ¨C and there are certainly criticisms of EU research funding that could be levelled.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

UUK¡¯s first big event in the Universities for Europe campaign is on 27 July, in the shape of a ¡°discussion¡± about ¡°why being in the UK matters for our universities and for the UK¡±. Chuka Umunna, Labour¡¯s pro-Europe shadow business secretary, and Damian Green, the pro-Europe Conservative MP, will be among the speakers.

Should be interesting, especially if Cummings and the ¡°no¡± campaign can get someone along.

john.morgan@tesglobal.com