scholarly journals United Kingdom’s contribution to European research output in biomedical sciences: 2008–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raoul Tan ◽  
Eric Sijbrands

Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU&rsquo;s research in biomedical sciences. Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world. Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008&ndash;2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world&rsquo;s top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71&ndash;2.88, p< 0.001). The UK&rsquo;s share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union. Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008&ndash;2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU&rsquo;s research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected.

Author(s):  
Olha Ovechkina

In connection with the decision to withdraw the UK from the EU a number of companies will need to take into account that from 1 January 2021 EU law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and will become a "third country" for EU Member States, unless the provisions of bilateral agreements or multilateral trade agreements. This means that the four European freedoms (movement of goods, services, labor and capital) will no longer apply to UK companies to the same extent as they did during the UK's EU membership. The purpose of the article is to study, first of all, the peculiarities of the influence of Great Britain's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal regulation of the status of European legal entities. Brexit results in the inability to register European companies and European economic interest groups in the UK. Such companies already registered before 01.01.2021 have the opportunity to move their place of registration to an EU Member State. These provisions are defined in Regulations 2018 (2018/1298) and Regulations 2018 (2018/1299).British companies with branches in EU Member States will now be subject to the rules applicable to third-country companies, which provide additional information on their activities. In the EU, many countries apply the criterion of actual location, which causes, among other things, the problem of non-recognition of legal entities established in the country where the criterion of incorporation is used (including the United Kingdom), at the same time as the governing bodies of such legal entities the state where the settlement criterion is applied. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of possible non-recognition of British companies, given the location of the board of such a legal entity in the state where the residency criterion applies, it seems appropriate to consider reincarnation at the actual location of such a company. Reducing the risks of these negative consequences in connection with Brexit on cross-border activities of legal entities is possible by concluding interstate bilateral and multilateral agreements that would contain unified rules on conflict of law regulation of the status of legal entities.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Marian Żukowski ◽  
Monika Nowakowska

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU structures creates a new chapter in the history of the European integration. For the first time, after several decades of steady and secure functioning of the EU, a split occurs. Lofty ideas about creation of strong, coherent, wealthier and safer Europe lose in the competition with economic indicators and the national interest of the United Kingdom. Brexit is an expression of the negative evaluation of the EU functioning by the British society. This opinion is grounded in difficulties of the EU with solving current economic, social and political problems of contemporary Europe, as well as in decreased cooperation among member states. The following most important reasons for Brexit should be mentioned: the uncontrolled inflow of immigrants, increased terror threat, loss of economic independence and national identity. It is also worth noticing the successful actions of right-wing politicians who used the situation to build their own vision of the state. Consequences of Brexit shall affect both the United Kingdom and the EU member states but also non-EU countries. They shall have political, economic and social dimensions. However, at the current stage of the negotiations, it is difficult to predict all effects of the decisions taken. According to analysts, the UK shall incur financial losses, competitiveness of economy will decline, GDP will go down, political relations with neighbour states will deteriorate. Brexit shall affect particularly these states which are close trade partners of the United Kingdom. Loss of the UK as one of the economic pillars of the EU shall influence the economic situation of the entire European Union. Brexit is also a crack in the EU image as an organization cherishing the values of solidarity and humanism. Individual interests of particular member states can be a contagious example.


Author(s):  
McMeel Gerard

This chapter provides an overview of the relevant UK law. The timing of the coming into force in EU Member States of the Prospectus Regulation posed some problems of exposition of the law in the United Kingdom of liability for information in prospectuses. The date of the Regulation coming into force was when it was originally intended that the UK would leave the European Union. When the date for ‘Brexit’ was extended, the Regulation automatically came into force in accordance with orthodox EU and UK arrangements. However, after changing prime ministers, the date for Brexit became uncertain. Furthermore, there were questions as to whether the UK would leave pursuant to the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement or some other withdrawal agreement, or with no agreement with the EU (the ‘no deal’ scenario) at all. The chapter tries to address the various possible scenarios arising from these complications introduced by Brexit.


Author(s):  
T. Romanova ◽  
E. Pavlova

The article examines how the normative power, which the EU puts forward as an ideological basis of its actions in the world, manifests itself in the national partnerships for modernization between Russia and EU member states. The authors demonstrate the influence of the EU’s normativity on its approach to modernization as well as the difference in the positions of its member countries. It is concluded that there is no unity in the EU’s approach to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the new classification of EU member states, which is based on their readiness to act in accordance with the Union’s concept of normative power, is offered.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristine Sørensen ◽  
Helmut Brand

Abstract A decade ago the European health literacy field was in its infancy. A comparable study among EU Member States was made to explore if health literacy was as much as a concern in Europe as elsewhere in the world. This article analyses the impact of the European Health Literacy project (2009–2012). Based on the outcomes new avenues for health literacy in Europe are proposed. In spite of progress there is still a strong call for actions to make health literacy a priority in the EU.


Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.


Author(s):  
Jean-Claude Piris

Este estudio surge de los acontecimientos producidos en 2014 y 2015 en Escocia (referéndum sobre la independencia) y en Cataluña («consulta informal» y elecciones autonómicas). En ambos casos, los movimientos secesionistas deseaban que un nuevo Estado nacido de la secesión llegara a ser (según ellos, «siguiera siendo») parte de la UE. Esta convicción les fortalece, ya que la UE es vista como un «refugio seguro », que permite la independencia sin la amenaza de quedar aislado. Los Tratados de la UE ni prevén ni prohiben la división de un Estado miembro. No obstante, para llegar a ser parte de la UE, la región secesionista debería primero ser reconocida como Estado por la comunidad internacional, y específicamente por los 28 Estados miembros de la UE (incluyendo España y el Reino Unido). Esto sería legalmente posible si el nuevo Estado naciera respetando completamente el Estado de Derecho, pero en cambio excluiría un «Estado» que hubiera declarado unilateralmente su independencia violando la Constitución nacional. Así, un nuevo Estado reconocido podría ser candidato a incorporarse a la UE. El autor muestra que debería seguirse el procedimiento del artículo 49 del Tratado de la UE y no el del artículo 48 (enmiendas a los Tratados). Tomando Escocia como ejemplo, el autor describe los pasos legales necesarios que deben darse después de la secesión. Señala que la división de un Estado de la UE ya no debería verse como un asunto estrictamente nacional; dadas sus consecuencias sobre la UE en conjunto y sobre otros Estados miembros, es un asunto que no puede ser ignorado por la UE.This study starts from the 2014-2015 events in Scotland (referendum on independence) and in Catalonia («informal consultation» and regional elections). Secessionists movements in both cases wished that a new State born from the secession would become (according to them «continues to be») part of the EU. That conviction strengthens them, as the EU is seen as a «safe haven», allowing independence without the threat of being isolated. The EU Treaties neither provide for, nor prohibit the partition of a Member State. However, in order to become part of the EU, the secessionist region should first be recognized as a State by the international community, and specifically by the 28 EU Member States (including Spain and the UK). This would be legally possible if the new State was born in full respect of the Rule of Law, but would exclude a «State» having unilaterally declared its independence in violation of the national Constitution. Then, a new State recognised could be a candidate to the EU. The author shows that the procedure of article 49 of the Treaty on EU woud have to be followed (accession of a new State) and not that of article 48 (amendments to the Treaties). Taking Scotland as an example, the author describes the necessary legal steps to be accomplished after the secession. He stresses that the partition of an EU State should not anymore being regarded as a strictly national matter. Given its consequences on the EU as a whole and on other Member States, it is a matter that cannot be ignored by the EU.


2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Groenendijk

AbstractSeveral States require immigrants from outside the EU to participate in language or integration courses after arrival. In recent years, some EU Member States made passing a language test (Netherlands and Germany) or participating in a language course (France) a condition for a visa for family reunification for immigrants from certain third countries. Denmark and the UK introduced a similar requirement in 2010. The focus of his article is on three aspects: the political debate, the legal constraints and the effects. Firstly, the development of the pre-departure integration strategies is analyzed. What was the rationale behind the introduction and does is vary between Member States? Secondly, the legal constraints of EU and international law are discussed. Finally, the results of the first studies evaluating this policy instrument are presented. Is pre-departure a good predictor for immigrant’s ability to integrate? Does it actually assist integration, and what are the unexpected or counterproductive effects?


Subject The package of reforms on a new EU-UK relationship. Significance The agreement between the United Kingdom and its EU partners sets the stage for the UK referendum on EU membership, which Prime Minister David Cameron has set for June 23. Cameron said he had negotiated new terms that would allow the United Kingdom to remain in the EU. Impacts The deal bolsters the campaign to remain in the EU, but the referendum outcome is still highly uncertain. The deal will only come into effect if the outcome is for remaining, forestalling a second referendum for better terms. If the outcome is for leaving, a new relationship with the EU would have to be negotiated during a two-year transition period. It would also probably lead to a second Scottish independence referendum and UK break-up.


Significance However, member states have the dominant foreign policy role in the EU. After Brexit, that will be France and Germany despite the United Kingdom insisting that it wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible. Impacts EU reformers will light on foreign policy as an area to drive forwarded integration. However, the EEAS lacks the competencies and institutional horsepower to be a force for integration. The strategic needs of the 27 post-Brexit EU members will be various, thus acting as a drag on integration. Smaller EU member states will see more advantage than larger ones in collectively pursuing foreign policy goals through Brussels. Larger member states will be unwilling to submit their national defence policies to greater EU authority.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document