Universities would be one of the most vulnerable public bodies if Britain left the European Union (EU), according to Moody’s.

Having already warned of the economic effects of a Brexit, the ratings agency has now issued a warning for universities and Transport for London (TFL) were we to cut ties with the EU, resulting in a potential withdrawal in funding.

The agency pointed out that universities in the UK receive “significant” research funding from the EU, which has increased “appreciably in recent years”.

Between 2007 and 2013, the UK received 22 per cent of total European research funding available under a programme known as Framework Programme Seven, which was more than any other country in the EU.

Britain’s contribution towards European research was £5.4 billion but it received £8.8 billion back, according to figures from the Office of National Statistics,

Although they do expect that the government would want to make up some of those funds lost if Britain did leave the EU, it has strong suspicions that the funding gap could not be filled entirely.

Moody’s stated, “The UK is a net recipient of EU research funds. We would expect the UK government and other sources would make up some of the funding in the event of an exit, but the loss is unlikely to be compensated in full.

Oxford University’s Chancellor, Lord Patten, also warned Oxford University could drop in the world rankings if Britain were to leave the EU.

He commented, “If you ask serious scientists and academics whether we are better off inside the EU or outside, they would overwhelmingly answer ‘it’s a no brainer.’

“I am not saying that we suddenly will fall into a lower division if we left the EU, but it would be much more difficult both to get the funding we require and to be linked in to the best research of the EU. Without EU funding the research would have gone down in the last few years. What has actually kept us ahead is our research funding.”

Labour MEP Anneliese Dodds told Cherwell, “I agree that leaving the EU could have a considerable impact on universities in the UK. Oxford University and Oxford Brookes received over £60 million between them from the EU in 2014/15, and students at both universities benefit from Erasmus schemes and grants if they want to spend a year studying in another EU country.”

“Oxford University has also been allocated the largest ever loan to a university from the European Investment Bank of £200 million. Most, if not all, of this funding would be lost if we left the EU – and if we want to maintain our reputation for excellence in higher education, it’s not a risk we can afford to take.”

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesperson and a leading campaigner for Remain, who came to speak in Oxford right at the beginning of the campaign, commented, “The EU has also enabled academic exchanges between Europe’s great universities and widespread co-operation in research projects in many different fields.

“These are among the reasons why leading academics in the UK are overwhelmingly in support of our remaining in the EU. It is also why the majority of Europe’s academics are profoundly concerned about the prospect of our leaving.”

Freddie Hopkinson, Vice Chair (Media) for Oxford Students for Europe (OSFE), told Cherwell, “Moody’s’ claim highlights quite how important continued EU membership is for our university, as well as for research establishments across the country. OSFE will continue to campaign to make sure as many members of the University vote to stay in, protecting this vital stream of research funding. Alongside Oxford University, OSFE has already acknowledged the huge benefits membership of the EU provides for Britain’s universities- Moody’s’ claim dramatically reinforces this point.”

A few weeks ago, Oxford University released a statement expressing its support for the Stay campaign, saying, “While recognising that individual members of the University will hold different views on the Referendum, and while encouraging open debate on the issue, the University’s Council wishes to affirm the value that the UK’s membership of the EU provides to the University.”

Oxford University has been contacted for further comment.

Revered filibusterer and fierce Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, returned to his old stomping ground, Trinity College, for a debate last Sunday. Unsurprisingly, given Rees-Mogg’s reputation as a euro-sceptic, the motion was centred around Brexit, but was given a twist, as the spotlight focused on the question of British sovereignty: “This house believes that EU membership is an unjustifiable infringement on UK sovereignty”.

The floor’s overwhelmingly pro-EU stance going into the debate was clear from the first vote: eight in favour of the proposition (pro-Brexit), 58 against and 12 undecided.

In his speech, the floor witnessed Rees-Mogg’s well-practiced and eloquent oratorical skills, as he explained, in a very methodical manner, why he believed that in order to recover our sovereignty, especially over law making, we needed to leave the EU. The most persuasive element of his speech was when he exposed that in order for a law to be passed, it has to first be approved and proposed by the EU Commission, which, vitally, is an unelected body. He said, “We need to focus on where sovereignty comes from: your vote. Now, if your vote is unable to change the law, then your sovereignty is eroded.”

He closed his speech by saying, “You have a choice. You need to decide what your country is. Is it the failing and bureaucratic Europe? Or, is it the strong, independent and sovereign Britain.”

The well practiced speech of Rees-Mogg wasn’t able to convince enough students to turn the tide of the debate. The final vote revealed a minor increase in favour of the proposition,

The final figures were: 12 for, 51 against and five undecided.

High level dignitaries from Qatar visited Somerville College to sign a Memorandum of Understanding to provide funding for at least four new Qatar Thatcher Scholarships.

The guests were greeted by the Chancellor of the University and the former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher and Foundation Fellow at Somerville, Lord Powell of Bayswater.

The visit follows the recent donation of £3 million by the Qatar Development Fund to the Margaret Thatcher Scholarship Trust, established by the college following Lady Thatcher’s death in 2013. The additional Qatar Thatcher Scholarships will pay full tuition and college fees for students as well as their living and travel costs while at Somerville, and “special consideration will be given to scholars from Qatar and other Arab countries.”

Principal of Somerville College, Dr Alice Prochaska, told Cherwell the col lege “will only fund students where outstandingly well-qualified candidates apply, and we are particularly interested in supporting women from the region, as are our colleagues in Qatar.”

When asked why the Qatar Development Fund, primarily established to a perfectly reasonable decision Somerville improve the livelihood of communities around the world, is sponsoring a scholarship scheme at an Oxford college, she stated that “Qatar does in fact have links with the University of Oxford already. In this case, there is a history of admiration for Margaret Thatcher who was the first UK prime minister to visit the Gulf States.”

With increasing concern over the origins of donations to the university and the influence wielded by donors, Dr Prochaska stressed that “the programme is 100 per cent non-political” and that scholarships are awarded “regardless of their nationality, political or cultural background or beliefs.” The college already have a programme of Indira Gandhi Scholarships “funded a perfectly reasonable decision Somerville mainly by the Government of India.”

A University spokesperson told Cherwell the Qatari Government “does not play any role in determining who gets selected for the scholarships.”

Somerville JCR President Louis Mercier said “Somerville College has been committed for some time to the creation of a series of extensive schol- arships, in Thatcher’s name, for those excellent students who have overcome some sort of adversity – financial in particular.

“Ultimately, the students trust the college to make the right decision regarding these scholarships, and I personally do not believe a knee-jerk reaction is warranted when so little is known about the arrangement.”

John Mann MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, addressed OULC on Monday. He stressed the need for OULC to accept the Macpherson definition of racism, whereby a racist incident is “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

Mann emphasised the difference between debates about Israel and Jews and other minorities such as the Rohingyas in Burma. Relating to his position as chair of the APPG against Antisemitism, he said “I receive scores of emails asking ‘Who is paying me?’ and ‘Who is pulling my strings?’ Isn’t it strange that I don’t receive these types of emails for any other issue?”

Mann touched on the long history of antisemitism, claiming that Britain is reverting to the antisemitism common in the 1980s. He stressed the public’s propensity to jump to conclusions of conspiracy when talking about Israeli politics. Asked whether he would condemn Malia Bouattia, Mann replied that although he didn’t agree with her, there are two ways to fix these problems.

“I’ve not been happy with her statements. [But] there are two options. One is you call them out, you condemn them, you isolate them. The other is you educate them. I called for Naz Shah not to be suspended by the Labour party. I was working with her and my office was working with her.

“I thought it was very significant that a prominent, reasonably young, Muslim woman MP had shown she understood why what she’d said was offensive.”

Talking about attitudes in the UK, Mann said, “I represent one of the most white working class communities in Britain, there is what I call a benign anti-Semitism in my constituency. If you said ‘Jews’ and ‘money’ people would make an association immediately – Jews are rich… This type of low-level anti- Semitism is usually in the Muslim community.” Mann has recently made national news for shouting at Ken Livingstone declaring him a “Nazi apologist” after Livingstone defended Naz Shah.

The talk follows a difficult few months for OULC. Alex Chalmersstood down as OULC co-Chair in February, alleging the existence of anti-Semitism within the Club. The Issue sparked a national debate on anti-Semitism that has come to a head following the election of Malia Bouattia, who faces similar allegations of anti-Semitism, to National President of the NUS.

Before Mann’s address, the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said that universities “are ignoring vilification of jews” in an interview withThe Sunday Times.

“To vice-chancellors I would say: see what is happening under your noses, what is happening to the reputation of your universities.

“What troubles me is that Zionist bashing on campus has gone unchallenged.”

Part of the solution, he continued, lies in safe spaces, “Freedom of speech needs to take place in a healthy and appropriate context.”

After Mann’s talk, OULC passed a motion on empowering women in the club. Noting that men dominate both OULC events and the committee, the motion introduces gender quotas. It also states that one of the holders of the position of Chair and Deputy Chair (both equal in co-chair status) must identify wholly or partially as a woman.

Two committee positions will also be reserved for those “who self-identify partly or wholly as a women or transfeminine.” If no women stand, the committee will produce a report and a remedy.

During the Q&A, David Parton, co-Chair of OULC, twice encouraged those who self-identified as women to ask a question. Following the talk, all men had to vacate the room so the women members of OULC could hold a discussion in private.