“£18Bn Spent on Opaque Covid Contracts”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Process of Brexit: What Comes Next?
LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY THE PROCESS OF BREXIT: WHAT COMES NEXT? Alan Renwick Co-published with: Working Paper January 2017 All views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the UCL European Institute. © Alan Renwick (Image credit: Way out by Matt Brown; CC BY 2.0) The Process of Brexit: What Comes Next? Alan Renwick* * Dr Alan Renwick is Deputy Director of the UCL Constitution Unit. THE PROCESS OF BREXIT: WHAT COMES NEXT? DR ALAN RENWICK Executive Summary The phoney war around Brexit is almost over. The Supreme Court has ruled on Article 50. The government has responded with a bill, to which the House of Commons has given outline approval. The government has set out its negotiating objectives in a White Paper. By the end of March, if the government gets its way, we will be entering a new phase in the Brexit process. The question is: What comes next? What will the process of negotiating and agreeing Brexit terms involve? Can the government deliver on its objectives? What role might parliament play? Will the courts intervene again? Can the devolved administrations exert leverage? Is a second referendum at all likely? How will the EU approach the negotiations? This paper – so far as is possible – answers these questions. It begins with an overview of the Brexit process and then examines the roles that each of the key actors will play. The text was finalised on 2 February, shortly after publication of the government’s White Paper. Overview: Withdrawing from the EU Article 50 of the EU treaty sets out a four-step withdrawal process: the decision to withdraw; notification of that decision to the EU; negotiation of a deal; and agreement to the deal’s terms. -
Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department Of
Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature The Passive in the British Political News Bachelor thesis Brno 2017 Supervisor: Written by: Mgr. Renata Jančaříková, Ph.D. Karolína Šafářová Announcement I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently and that I have used only the sources from the works cited list. Brno, 30 March 2017 ..…..………………… Karolína Šafářová Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Renata Jančaříková, Ph.D, for her guidance, kind support and valuable advice. Anotace Tato bakalářská práce The Passive in the British political news je zaměřena na užití trpného rodu v politických článcích na téma Brexit vyskytujících se v seriozních novinách The Guardian a bulváru The Daily Mail. V práci je použita kvantitatvní analýza za účelem srovnání výskytu činného a trpného rodu, vyhodnocení důvodů pro používání trpného rodu, analyzování výskytu významových a uvozovacích sloves, a poměru činitelů trpného rodu vyjádřených pomocí 'by'. Annotation This bachelor thesis The Passive in the British political news is focused on the use of the passive in the broadsheet The Guardian and the tabloid The Daily Mail on the topic of concerning Brexit. It uses quantitative analysis to compare the frequency of use of the active and the passive voice, to analyze reasons for using the passive, the frequency of occurrence of lexical and report verbs, and the proportion of agents expressed by 'by'. Klíčová slova trpný rod, činný rod, noviny, politické zprávy, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, analýza, kvalitní noviny, bulvár Key Words passive voice, active voice, newspaper, political news, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, analysis broadsheets, tabloids Content 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... -
Download the Guide
A Guide to Brexit Terminology This glossary has been designed to explain some of the key terms used in relation to Brexit. At the end of the glossary are links to additional resources and originals of key documents. The Glossary is not designed to be an exhaustive list and the authors hope that you find the explanations of key terms helpful. The UK which voted to join the EU had a different constitution to the UK that voted to leave the EU. This is reflected by some of the terminology used in the glossary and the inclusion of reference to the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N |O| P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | A to Z of Brexit terms February 01 2019 version pg. 1 Advisory The Brexit referendum is often described as ‘only advisory’. The referendum was authorised and conducted under the European Union Referendum Act 2015. It is advisory because Parliament is sovereign and because the Act contained no enabling legislation. Enabling provisions are ones which explicitly state that Parliament is legally bound to implement the outcome of the referendum. Hence, Parliament was not legally obliged to enact the outcome of the Brexit referendum. In contrast, for countries with codified constitutions, the outcome of a referendum ‘may’, in some instances bind both parliament and the government to implement its result. In Britain, however, with an uncodified constitution, it is possible for the government to promise in advance that it would respect the result, but that promise would be only political and not legally binding as parliament cannot be bound be a previous parliament; it can change its mind. -
COVID-19: Make It the Last Pandemic
COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city of area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Report Design: Michelle Hopgood, Toronto, Canada Icon Illustrator: Janet McLeod Wortel Maps: Taylor Blake COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic by The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response 2 of 86 Contents Preface 4 Abbreviations 6 1. Introduction 8 2. The devastating reality of the COVID-19 pandemic 10 3. The Panel’s call for immediate actions to stop the COVID-19 pandemic 12 4. What happened, what we’ve learned and what needs to change 15 4.1 Before the pandemic — the failure to take preparation seriously 15 4.2 A virus moving faster than the surveillance and alert system 21 4.2.1 The first reported cases 22 4.2.2 The declaration of a public health emergency of international concern 24 4.2.3 Two worlds at different speeds 26 4.3 Early responses lacked urgency and effectiveness 28 4.3.1 Successful countries were proactive, unsuccessful ones denied and delayed 31 4.3.2 The crisis in supplies 33 4.3.3 Lessons to be learnt from the early response 36 4.4 The failure to sustain the response in the face of the crisis 38 4.4.1 National health systems under enormous stress 38 4.4.2 Jobs at risk 38 4.4.3 Vaccine nationalism 41 5. -
The Companion Test to SARS-Cov-2 Vaccination Innovating Rapid Testing to Preserve and Improve Life
TM The companion test to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination Innovating rapid testing to preserve and improve life Innovating rapid testing to preserve and improve life Leading the UK RTC Contents Introduction Page 03 The nature of SARS-CoV-2 testing has changed. Where Currently available tests detect antibodies targeting antibody tests were once chiefly used for charting the two different proteins on the SARS-CoV-2 virus: Introduction spread of infection within communities, today it is the Nucleocapsid or the Spike protein. However, almost 04 emerging as a key pillar of large-scale immunisation without exception, vaccine formulations are based on campaigns. the Spike protein. Vaccines and antibody tests converge on the same target However, there are stark differences between currently Testing for Nucleocapsid protein antibodies alone is 05 available antibody tests in both function and form. therefore of limited value. Though they may seem technical, these factors have Emerging evidence links prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 with immunity This short paper explains how rapid antibody testing significant implications for immunisation policy going focused on detecting the antibody response to the Spike 06 forward. protein, working hand in hand with vaccination, can help AbC-19™ Rapid Test The crucial difference is the antibody response that populations accelerate to herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2.. 06 the tests are evaluating. Trial of AbC-19™ Rapid Test with Vaccines 08 Summary 10 Contact 12 References 02 The companion test to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination 03 Vaccines and antibody tests Emerging evidence links prior infection converge on the same target with SARS-CoV-2 with immunity The SARS-CoV-2 virus comprises a single strand of RNA As a result, vaccine research has focused overwhelmingly on Two questions have dogged researchers since the outbreak of enveloped within four structural proteins. -
'Good Gigs: a Fairer Future for the UK's Gig Economy'
Good Gigs A fairer future for the UK’s gig economy Brhmie Balaram, Josie Warden and Fabian Wallace-Stephens April 2017 Contents About us 3 Acknowledgments 4 Summary 5 1. The nature of Britain’s gig economy 10 Part I: The current trend 12 Part II: Insight into different experiences 23 Part III: Future prospects 30 2. Gig work as ‘good work’ 34 Part I: Understanding and defining employment relationships in the gig economy 35 Part II: Understanding the interactions between employment law, tax and welfare 39 Part III: Getting beyond the system with ‘good work’ 47 3. The potential of peer-to-peer platforms 49 4. Transforming the labour market together 56 Rethinking regulatory approaches 57 The RSA’s recommendations 58 Concluding remarks 64 2 Good Gigs: A fairer future for the UK’s gig economy About us Brhmie Balaram is a Senior Researcher at the RSA. Josie Warden is a Researcher at the RSA. Fabian Wallace-Stephens is a Data Research Assistant at the RSA. All work in the Economy, Enterprise and Manufacturing Team. The RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) believes that everyone should have the freedom and power to turn their ideas into reality – we call this the Power to Create. Through our ideas, research and 28,000- strong Fellowship, we seek to realise a society where creative power is distributed, where concentrations of power are confronted, and where creative values are nurtured. The RSA Action and Research Centre combines practical experimentation with rigorous research to achieve these goals. MANGOPAY is an online payment technology designed for marketplaces, crowd- funding platforms and sharing economy businesses. -
Dear Rook Irwin Sweeney Good Law Project Limited V Secretary of State
Rook Irwin Sweeney LLP Our ref: SS/335/10241.0086 107-111 Fleet Street Your ref: AMI:AIR;162 London EC4A 2AB 4 May 2021 By email: Dear Rook Irwin Sweeney Good Law Project Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v Abingdon Health Limited As you are aware, Abingdon Health plc (“Abingdon”) has not yet decided whether to participate in the judicial review proceedings that the Good Law Project (“GLP”) have brought against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in which Abingdon is named as an Interested Party. Our client acknowledges the GLP’s right to challenge the Department of Health and Social Care’s (“DHSC’s”) processes, but is concerned about the basis on which the case is proceeding. Therefore, we would like to set out some points of clarification below, and have enclosed documents that we hope are useful. The test developed by Abingdon that is the subject of these proceedings is referred to as the “AbC-19TM Test”. Abingdon Health and its expertise 1. Throughout the proceedings to date, the GLP has made multiple disparaging statements about Abingdon’s expertise and its ability to develop a COVID-19 antibody test.1 Such statements have led the Court to conclude that “the extent to which Abingdon Health itself had any expertise is open to serious doubt”.2 In our view, there is no doubt at all as to Abingdon’s expertise, and it was eminently qualified for the task of developing a COVID-19 antibody test. On a full analysis of the facts, a Court would be likely to conclude the same. -
Brexit Bulletin—UK and EU Announce a New Brexit Deal
Brexit Bulletin—UK and EU announce a new Brexit deal LNB News 17/10/2019 39 On 17 October 2019, the European Commission and UK government announced an agreement in principle on the revised legal terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, which includes a revised Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and revised political declaration on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship. With the European Council ongoing, the Commission recommended that the European Council (Article 50) endorses the revised agreement and the European Parliament give its consent, but the deal cannot be ratified without the approval of the UK Parliament. Adam Cygan, professor in EU law at University of Leicester, Kieran Laird, partner at Gowling WLG and Laura Rees-Evans, senior associate at Fietta Law, comment on the agreement and provide insight into what happens next. What has been announced? As noted above, the UK and EU have announced agreement at negotiator level on a revised Withdrawal Agreement Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and a revised Political Declaration on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship. In accordance with the European Commission’s original mandate, there are no substantive changes to the core text of the Withdrawal Agreement which was endorsed by the EU in 2018. Documents published set out the revised legal text of the Northern Ireland Protocol and political declaration, plus limited technical amendments to the previous Withdrawal Agreement. There are no substantive changes to the core text of the Withdrawal Agreement endorsed by the EU in 2018. With the European Council ongoing, the Commission recommended that the European Council (Article 50) endorses the revised agreement and the European Parliament give its consent, but the deal cannot be ratified without the approval of the UK Parliament. -
Hong Kong Leader Seeks an End to Violence, Promises Dialogue
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DELHI THE HINDU 14 WORLD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ELSEWHERE Hong Kong leader seeks an end British lawmakers vote on to violence, promises dialogue Bill to block no-deal Brexit PM Boris Johnson demands snap election on October 15 Govt. is withdrawing extradition Bill to fully allay public concerns, says Carrie Lam ‘UN rights chief meddling Reuters in Brazil’s internal affairs’ Reuters LONDON HONG KONG BRASŢLIA The British Parliament on Brazil President Jair Hong Kong leader Carrie Wednesday voted to prevent Bolsonaro on Wednesday accused United Nations Lam, who on Wednesday Prime Minister Boris John human rights chief Michelle withdrew the controversial son taking Britain out of the Bachelet of meddling in his extradition Bill, expressed European Union without a country’s affairs after she hope -
UK's Withdrawal from the European Union
Library Briefing UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union Debate on 19 October 2019 The House of Lords will sit on Saturday 19 October 2019. This will be the first weekend sitting since 1982. The following motions have been tabled under the name of Lord Callanan, Minister of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union: that for the purposes of section 1(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 and section 13(1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House takes note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement titled “Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community” and the framework for the future relationship titled “Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom” that the United Kingdom has concluded with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as a “Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the ‘Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland”, copies of which three documents were laid before the House on Saturday 19 October. that for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, this House takes note of the statement laid before the House on Saturday 19 October titled “Statement that the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union without an agreement having been reached under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union”. -
Complete V.12 No.2
Journal of Civil Law Studies Volume 12 Number 2 2019 Article 15 12-31-2019 Complete V.12 No.2 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls Part of the Civil Law Commons Repository Citation Complete V.12 No.2, 12 J. Civ. L. Stud. (2019) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol12/iss2/15 This Complete Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Law Studies by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Volume 12 Number 2 2019 ___________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLES . Changes in the Legal System: A Comparative Essay Based on the Hungarian Experience Attila Harmathy . A Cacophony of Speech, Law, and Persona: Battling Against the Vortex of #MeToo in France and the U.S. Anne Wagner & Sarah Marusek NOTE . The Digest Online Project: A Resource to Disseminate the Legal Heritage of Louisiana Agustín Parise CIVIL LAW IN THE WORLD . Scotland Brexit, Boris Johnson and the Nobile Officium Stephen Thomson BOOK REVIEWS . Yaëll Emerich, Conceptualising Property Law: Integrating Common Law and Civil Law Traditions John A. Lovett . James R. Maxeiner, Failures of American Methods of Lawmaking in Historical and Comparative Perspectives Scott J. Burnham Markus G. Puder . Tamar Herzog, A Short History of European Law: The Last Two and a Half Millennia Agustín Parise Also in this issue: CIVIL LAW IN LOUISIANA JOURNAL OF CIVIL LAW STUDIES Editor-in-Chief Olivier Moréteau Louisiana State University Paul M. -
Whole Blood-Based Measurement of SARS-Cov-2-Specific T Cell
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.02.21258218; this version posted June 3, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Whole blood-based measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses reveals asymptomatic infection and vaccine efficacy in healthy subjects and patients with solid organ cancers Martin J. Scurr1,2, Wioleta M. Zelek3,4, George Lippiatt2, Michelle Somerville1, Stephanie E. A. Burnell1, Lorenzo Capitani1, Kate Davies5, Helen Lawton5, Thomas Tozer6, Tara Rees6, Kerry Roberts6, Mererid Evans7, Amanda Jackson7, Charlotte Young7, Lucy Fairclough8, Mark Wills9, Andrew D. Westwell10, B. Paul Morgan3,4, Awen Gallimore*1,3§ and Andrew Godkin*1,3,6§ 1 Division of Infection & Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 2 ImmunoServ Ltd., Cardiff, UK 3 Systems Immunity University Research Institute, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 4 UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 5 Radyr Medical Centre, Cardiff, UK. 6 Dept. of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK. 7 Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK. 8 School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 9 Department of Medicine, Addenbrookes Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 10 School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. * Corresponding Authors: Prof Andrew Godkin Division of Infection and Immunity Henry Wellcome Building Health Park Cardiff CF14 4XN Email: [email protected] Authorship note: (§) Aw.G and An.G contributed equally to this work.