An EU without the UK: mapping the UK’s changing roles in the EU scientific research

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 1185-1198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhigang Hu ◽  
Gege Lin ◽  
Taian Sun ◽  
Xianwen Wang
Author(s):  
Deirdre Curtin
Keyword(s):  
The Uk ◽  

UK involvement in the EU Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ) has been patchy. It never joined the Schengen border-free zone, and when in 2014 it exercised a block exit from all AFSJ measures, it selectively rejoined a substantial number. Even if partially outside, the UK has been a leader inside. Advanced intelligence capabilities meant it provided important support to the functioning of agencies such as Europol and UK laws inspired EU laws, for example, on data retention. The need to preserve some pragmatic forms of cooperation between the UK and the EU is obvious and shared by the UK security establishment. There is a partial institutional precedent . When Denmark rejected participation in Europol in a popular referendum, the Danish government obtained a deal from the EU institutions which allows it to remain associated to Europol as a ‘third country’ (and a Member State). The bespoke Brexit reality may prove even more complex.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-88
Author(s):  
James I. J. Green

A custom-made device (CMD) is a medical device intended for the sole use of a particular patient. In a dental setting, CMDs include prosthodontic devices, orthodontic appliances, bruxism splints, speech prostheses and devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea, trauma prevention and orthognathic surgery facilitation (arch bars and interocclusal wafers). Since 1993, the production and provision of CMDs have been subject to European Union (EU) Directive 93/42/EEC (Medical Device Directive, MDD) given effect in the UK by The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (Statutory Instrument 2002/618), and its subsequent amendments. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation, EU MDR) replaces the MDD and the other EU Directive pertaining to Medical Devices, Council Directive 90/385/EEC (Active Implantable Medical Device Directive, AIMDD). The EU MDR was published on 5 April 2017, came into force on 25 May 2017 and, following a three-year transition period was due to be fully implemented and repeal the MDD on 26 May 2020, but was deferred until 26 May 2021 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the UK, in preparation for the country’s planned departure from the EU, the EU MDR, with necessary amendments, was transposed into UK law (Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK MDR). The UK left the Union on 31 January 2020 and entered a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020, meaning that, from 1 January 2021, dental professionals in Great Britain who prescribe and manufacture CMDs are mandated to do so in accordance with the new legislation while Northern Ireland remains in line with the EU legislation and implementation date. This paper sets out the requirements that relate to the production and provision of CMDs in a UK dental setting.


2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-211
Author(s):  
Lesley-Ann Daniels ◽  
Alexander Kuo

Abstract Has the UK referendum to leave the EU (Brexit) affected territorial preferences within the UK? We draw on comparative theories of such preferences to address this question, as Brexit can be seen as a shock to a political unit. We test hypotheses in two key regions, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with original surveys fielded at a unique time (September 2019). We randomize making salient different Brexit scenarios and measure support for Scottish independence and unification with Ireland within each region. We find in Scotland the prospect of leaving the EU increases support for independence. This effect is pronounced among those who support the UK remaining in the EU. In Northern Ireland, religious background correlates highly with territorial views, and we find little evidence of Brexit or border-scenario effects. Our results contribute to the literature on decentralization processes and the EU, and provide evidence of when negative shocks affect such preferences.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095042222110344
Author(s):  
Oswald Jones

Academic engagement with small business and entrepreneurship was facilitated by the availability of European Union (EU) funding, which also stimulated the emergence of a small business and entrepreneurship (SBE) ‘community of practice’. Gradually, the SBE community developed into a ‘landscape of practice’ as small business research moved towards maturity. Furthermore, the SBE landscape of practice has coalesced around three core concepts: entrepreneurial learning, social networks and social capital. EU funding was the catalyst for many SBE academics in the UK to engage with practitioners involved with starting and managing their own businesses. The UK’s exit from the EU will inevitably mean that universities will no longer have access to EU Structural Funds. This has major implications for the UK SBE community’s engagement with practice as well as for entrepreneurs and business owners who have benefitted from a range of programmes designed to improve the performance of smaller firms.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199605
Author(s):  
Rebecca Niblock

This article will examine the provisions of Part III, Title VI of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) on Eurojust. While the agreement in the TCA with regard to Eurojust allows cooperation to continue, the new arrangements amount to a significant change. The article also looks at cooperation between the UK and other EU agencies, specifically the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, concluding that the practical impact of the UK’s departure from the EU is unlikely to be significant.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bender ◽  
Joseph Jones ◽  
Mark Young ◽  
Hendrike Wulfert-Markert

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document