Moffitt Innovators of Tomorrow Symposium Welcomes Its First … – Moffitt Cancer Center

Posted on by

Research Education & Training is excited to welcome Dr. Haley du Bois back to campus as a new postdoctoral fellow in the lab ofDr. Conor Lynch. Dr. du Bois first visited campus in May as part of the inaugural cohort of the Moffitt Innovators of Tomorrow (MIOT) Symposium, our newest postdoctoral recruitment program.

The Office of Postdoctoral Affairs hosts the MIOT Symposium twice a year, each time bringing a cohort of 10 advanced doctoral researchers and recent graduates to campus to present their research, meet with Moffitt faculty and learn about postdoctoral fellowship opportunities. The attendees are competitively selected and represent top emerging talent in basic science, quantitative science and population science cancer research.

A large focus of the event is showcasing the collaborative research environment Moffitt offers, as well as the extensive scientific and professional support available to Moffitt postdocs through the Cores and Office of Postdoctoral Affairs.

Dr. du Bois received her PhD in Cellular Biology earlier this year from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, where she studied under the direction of Dr. Amanda Lund. The Office of Postdoctoral Affairs interviewed Dr. du Bois as part of our new Meet the Postdocs series, to learn about her, her research and how the Innovators of Tomorrow Symposium helped bring her to Moffitt.

Can you tell us a bit about your doctoral research?

My graduate work was focused on understanding how a primary tumor communicates regionally and systemically with the host and how this long-range molecular communication may prime tissues for metastasis. Given that the lymph node is the most common site of metastasis for most solid tumors, I used a melanoma model to test whether the primary tumor secretes proteins that activate the lymph node as a pre-metastatic niche.

Testing this, I found that indeed tumor-secreted proteins are able to activate the pre-metastatic lymph node, even in the absence of extracellular vesicles. Using a chemical biology approach termed BONCAT (bioorthogonal non-canonical amino acid tagging), I was able to identify the melanoma-secreted proteins transported to a pre-metastatic lymph node. From these, I found that one such protein, CSPG4, is cleaved from the primary tumor cell surface and transported to the lymph node, priming it for metastasis. Furthermore, I found that CSPG4's chondroitin sulfate decorations were necessary for CSPG4-dependent lymph node pre-metastatic niche establishment, and that targeted removal of them can prevent lymph node metastasis.

Why did you decide to do your postdoc at Moffitt?

Attending MIOT was pivotal to my decision. I was incredibly fortunate to attend the inaugural MIOT symposium during a time in my graduate training that I was beginning to solidify my next goals. MIOT was a very comprehensive introduction to Moffitt's outstanding resources, exemplary faculty and innovative environment. The immersive experience showcased how collaborative and creative the teams here at Moffitt are and it was clear to me that this is a place where I would be supported to accomplish my goals.

Can you tell us a bit about yourself, what youre most looking forward to about your life in Tampa and your hobbies outside of the lab?

Coming from New York City, I am most looking forward to spending more time outside being active. I really enjoy gardening, hiking, and kayaking which are much more accessible here in Tampa. Aside from the outdoor activities I enjoy, I also like to cook and play board games with friends.

Read the original post:

Moffitt Innovators of Tomorrow Symposium Welcomes Its First ... - Moffitt Cancer Center

FactCheck: are experts worried about first UK ‘pig’ flu case? – Channel 4 News

Posted on by

One person in the UK has been infected by a strain of flu similar to viruses spreading in pigs, health officials have announced.

But what is the strain, what are the symptoms in humans and are experts worried?

Heres what we know so far.

Influenza A(H1) viruses are native to swine populations in most regions of the world, but viruses in pigs can occasionally infect humans, usually after direct or indirect exposure to pigs or contaminated environments.

Influenza A(H1N2)v is similar to flu viruses currently circulating in pigs in the UK but this is the first detection of this particular strain of flu in a human in the UK.

Theres been a total of 50 human cases of influenza A(H1N2)v reported globally since 2005, but no human deaths from this strain have been reported.

Human infections with swine influenza viruses also known as swine flu occur sporadically, according to the UKs Health Security Agency (UKHSA). It becomes a variant influenza virus when detected in a person.

The infection found in the UK is slightly different from recent human cases of the flu strain globally, health officials say, but similar to viruses in UK pigs.

The case was detected as part of routine national flu surveillance undertaken by UKHSA and the Royal College of General Practitioners. The individual was tested by their GP after experiencing respiratory symptoms and influenza A(H1N2)v virus was detected. They experienced a mild illness and have fully recovered.

In 2009, there was a pandemic in humans caused by an influenza virus (official name: influenza A H1N1(pdm09)) commonly referred to as swine flu.

But that virus contained genetic material from viruses circulating in pigs, birds and humans in the 1990s and 2000s. Its now circulating in humans on a seasonal basis and is no longer referred to as swine flu.

It is distinct from the viruses currently circulating in pigs. The case of flu found in the UK is classed as swine flu because its influenza from a pig, but what was previously called swine flu in 2009 is now not referred to as that.

The source of the individuals infection has not yet been found and remains under investigation, but close contacts of the case are being followed up by the UKHSA and partner organisations, and will be offered testing and advised on any necessary further care if they have symptoms or test positive.

The UKs Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Christine Middlemiss, said: In this case we are providing specialist veterinary and scientific knowledge to support the UKHSA investigation.

Pig keepers must also report any suspicion of swine flu in their herds to their local vet immediately.

People who are contacted and asked to test are encouraged to do so in order to assist in the detection of cases and assessment of transmission.

Those with any respiratory symptoms should continue to follow the existing guidance, including avoiding contact with other people while symptoms persist, particularly if the people they are coming into contact with are elderly or have existing medical conditions.

Martin Michaelis, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Kent, told FactCheck that as the pig influenza case detected in the UK was mild and efforts are ongoing to trace and break potential transmission chains, it does not seem very likely that this could be the beginning of a large, dangerous pig influenza outbreak in humans.

However, he added that you can never be entirely sure, because mutations can happen that change the nature of this virus strain, if it keeps spreading in humans.

But he noted that this pig H1N2 influenza virus infection of a human is a stark reminder that influenza viruses that spread between different species are posing a continuous risk to humans.

Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, told the Science Media Centre: Overall the evidence is that influenza A(H1N2) does not cause any more severe disease than other more commonly circulating types of influenza.

Also, person to person transmission does not appear to be very efficient and sustained person to person transmission has not been reported so far.

See the article here:

FactCheck: are experts worried about first UK 'pig' flu case? - Channel 4 News

Of open AI, panic and storytelling | Nation – Nation

Posted on by

In 1897, the great Polish-British novelist Joseph Conrad wrote a letter to his friend Robert Cunninghame Graham, on the fears he had about humans one day inventing a machine that would go rogue and one that couldnt be switched off setting off a terrifying clash with humans that is unprecedented in its scale and devastation.

Today many people join Conrad in conjuring up scary images of robots swooping down a town with murderous intent. Conrad wrote that, There is let us say a machine. It evolved itself (I am severely scientific) out of a chaos of scraps of iron and behold! it knits.

I am horrified at the horrible work and stand appalled. I feel it ought to embroider but it goes on knitting. The infamous thing has made itself: made itself without thought, without conscience, without foresight, without eyes, without heart. It knits us in and it knits us out. It has knitted time, space, pain, death, corruption, despair and all the illusions and nothing matters.

Conrads fear is now real, especially at the rate with which technology is driving the world. On November 17, Open AI, the company behind the revolutionary Chat GPT, fired its CEO Sam Altman. Less than five days later, he was reinstated as CEO. Its alleged that Mr Altman could have disagreed with the board on the direction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking.

The news of Mr Altmans firing had sent shockwaves throughout the AI world, raising trust concerns around the growing technology. Was the board or Mr Altman right? Are we on the verge of making technologies that could destroy humanity or at least their livelihoods?

Indeed, many questions about AI have been raised since ChatGPT made a flashy debut last year with people warning that chatbots and the new language models could be used for good as well as for harm or other devious reasons. Already chatbots write school essays, poems, cheat in exams and do everything in between.

For fiction writers, the increasing sophistication of AI presents endless possibilities for storytelling. This genre is science fiction (sometimes shortened to SF or sci-fi), which has been defined as a genre of speculative fiction, which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. Science fiction can trace its roots to ancient mythology. It is related to fantasy, horror, and superhero fiction and contains many subgenres.

Sci-fi writers have conjured up the psychic tenor of ambient doom occasioned by robots that unleash terror; marauding like charging bulls a confrontation, a pile of bleeding limbs, some rolling around on the floor; the robot beating people up and even killing them in the streets, totally out of control. This is the AI apocalypse. This would only be in the fertile imagination of science fiction writers except that modern development in AI is making it a possible reality each passing day.

One of the most terrifying short stories on AI apocalypse is The Last Human by Eric Steven Johnson. The story follows, the life of the last human survivor of the second robot apocalypse. Jay has been wandering aimlessly for ages and passes the time by reflecting on the better days which, sadly, were his days spent in servitude to the robot overlords. This is the story of Jay's struggle to survive with only himself to rely on. Jay must have walked in an uninhabitable moonscape neighbourhoods blasted, scorched and erased.

This idea of hostile takeover by AI has been the bane of Hollywood for a long time. The famous movie The Terminator is a science fiction action film featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, a cybernetic assassin (cyborg) sent to save mankind from extinction by Skynet, a hostile artificial intelligence.

Whether one day robots will roam the streets and turn against us or not, writers have fodder for their works. Technology has its beauty even if it is sometimes offered in a context of danger. Writers can come up with narratives on how technology is helping humans or swing to the dark side and give us tales of robots rounding up people and slapping them in the streets.

For readers, science fiction can stimulate imagination, creativity, and problem-solving. Elon Musk, the worlds richest man, was famously inspired by science fiction that has reportedly shaped his companies. He even names some of his products after ones found in the science fiction books he has read. Science fiction can also encourage curiosity and interest in the world around us.

This is very important especially for children so they can be curious about the world and explore it for discovery. Its encouraging that writers are churning out more books on AI in the era of ChatGPT. Thats the way to go.

See the original post:

Of open AI, panic and storytelling | Nation - Nation

What’s new in AI this week? Amazon releases new ChatBot, Open AI … – Android Authority

Posted on by

Welcome to the third edition of Whats New in AI, our weekly update where we bring you all the latest AI news, tools, and tips to help you excel in this new AI-driven future.

The biggest news of the week revolved around Amazon and its announcement of new AI tools for AWS, including a new AI chatbot. Were also starting to see OpenAI return mostly to normal it seems. Lets jump in and look at the biggestheadlines from last week:

While we try to focus this segment on apps that are widely available, thats not always the case. Sometimes this segment will instead focus on cool new tools that just have a lot of future potential, even if they are quite niche. This week will lean heavily into the latter, as several of these weeks spotlights are for tools that are niche projects that arent easily available just yet.

Solve Intelligence is a tool specifically crafted to assist attorneys in drafting patents, simplifying and streamlining the often labor-intensive process. While the tool is not openly accessible to everyone, interested parties can request a demo of the technology for their business if they find it beneficial.

The Gen-2 Motion Brush is a recent addition to Runways Gen-2 Suite. This tool enables users to create brief videos from a single image, including images generated by other AI tools. While there is a free trial available for experimentation with the tool and the entire suite, a subscription plan is required for full access and utilization.

While well consider this a single entry, its worth noting that Amazons Re:Invent showcase unveiled multiple new AWS serverless tools for its latest AWS preview. Notable mentions include the Amazon Aurora Limitless Database, Amazon ElastiCache, and Amazon Redshift. These tools serve various functions, such as predicting workloads for employers and optimizing resources.

The latest AI suite from GE HealthCare is designed to make a radiologists job easier, processing huge amounts of data to detect breast cancer and other issues sooner. MyBreastAI incorporates three AI applications to enhance efficiency: ProFound AI for DBT, 3D Mammography, and PowerLook Density. For a detailed overview of each tools specific functionalities, you can explore further by clicking the button below. While this toolset may not be directly applicable to mainstream AI users, it represents a significant breakthrough and underscores the innovative tools and use cases that AI is advancing.

Looking to learn more about AI, how to make better use of AI tools, or how to protect your privacy from AI? Each week we share a different how-to guide or tip we feel is worth sharing.

Calvin Wankhede / Android Authority

Its hard to believe that ChatGPT is now a year old. In that time it has made more than $30 million in revenue and has had more than 110 million mobile installs. If you subscribe to this newsletter you are very likely already rocking the app, but I know plenty who have avoided it myself included.

I had previously tried the ChatGPT early on and found it was easier to just use the web portal and place a Chrome web app for it onto my Android desktop. With the recent update that finally adds voice support for free users, the official app has finally become a must-have item. Although it cant do everything Google Assistant can, Ive found that its responses and voice sound so much more natural that I have fallen in love.

Dont already have it? You can grab the official ChatGPT app from either Google Play or the Apple App Store, depending on your phones platform.

Link:

What's new in AI this week? Amazon releases new ChatBot, Open AI ... - Android Authority

Brexit backer Dyson says hypocrisy claim over HQ move abroad ‘incredibly harmful’ – Yahoo News UK

Posted on by

By Paul Sandle

LONDON (Reuters) - James Dyson, the billionaire inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, told London's High Court a 2022 newspaper column that branded him a hypocrite who had "screwed" Britain was "not only wrong but incredibly harmful" to his reputation.

Dyson is suing Daily Mirror publisher MGN over print and online articles by Brian Reade that lambasted him for moving the global head office of his company from Britain to Singapore after championing the economic benefits of Brexit.

Under the headline: "Message to young folks today is that cheats do prosper", Reade included Dyson in a rogues' gallery of people whom it was alleged had acted illegally or dishonestly, the 76-year-old said in a witness statement published on Tuesday.

Dyson said that, as someone who had invested heavily in Britain and its young people, he found the criticism "particularly damaging and distressing".

MGN argued in its defence that an honest person could hold the opinion that Dyson was a hypocrite, given he had publicly supported the benefits of Britain leaving the European Union and then moved his company's global head office abroad after Brexit.

Dyson's approach to the lawsuit was "wholly disproportionate and abusive" and MGN would seek to have the case thrown out of court at the end of the trial, MGN's lawyer Adrienne Page said in court filings.

Dyson's company, which makes vacuum cleaners, air purifiers and other appliances, said in January 2019 it was moving its corporate office to Singapore to be closer to its Asian markets.

It said at the time the move was not driven by Brexit or by tax, with much of its product development remaining in south west England.

Dyson said on Tuesday that Asia was "logically" the right place for the company, giving its manufacturing and much of its sales were there.

"The decision to establish the global headquarters had nothing to do with Brexit at all, nor did it conflict with or render hypocritical my previous statements, let alone amount to me screwing the country or setting a poor moral example to young people," he said in his statement.

"It simply reflected the long-term commercial reality of Dyson's global business operations."

(Reporting by Paul Sandle; Additional reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Mark Potter)

See the rest here:

Brexit backer Dyson says hypocrisy claim over HQ move abroad 'incredibly harmful' - Yahoo News UK

Cliff Taylor: Post-Brexit, the UK’s different economic direction to Ireland’s is underlined – The Irish Times

Posted on by

The UK government put a political spin on its autumn statement on Wednesday, promising to lower the national insurance bill on employees and boost business investment. But after Brexit the UKs growth remains sluggish and its public finances are under pressure.

The reality is that despite the national insurance cut, the tax burden is set to rise to its highest level for many years while public spending forecasts point to real cuts in departmental spending which look near-impossible to achieve on the forecast scale and lower state investment.

The next UK government, likely to be Labour, will be left with some difficult decisions. And the divergence between Britain and the Republic where State investment and spending are on the rise will be underlined. The UK could change course under Labour, of course, but promising higher spending would mean raising taxes, too this is the political trap created by the Tories.

The UKs public finances were a bit better than expected in advance of the autumn statement, but remain under long-term pressure due to low growth and a relatively high national debt.

The impact of inflation, which has pushed up tax revenues as price and wage increases, gave the chancellor of the exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, some room for manoeuvre.

He chose to direct this almost exclusively to cutting taxes, meaning he had little additional cash to provide to government departments. Borrowing is forecast to fall from 5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) this year to 1.1 per cent by 2028-2029.

The UK spends more than 10 per cent of tax revenue on debt repayment while in the Republic it is less than 3 per cent

However, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) Britains budget watchdog points out this is based on a 19 billion fall in the real value of government spending by 2027-2028. Previously, it says, spending has tended to be topped up by day-to-day spending as pressures emerge. If this happens, future borrowing levels will go higher, unless taxes rise to compensate.

Comparison with Ireland: Strong growth and surging corporate finance receipts have helped to push the Irish public finances into surplus. Irelands national debt is also less vulnerable to higher interest as the vast bulk of outstanding debt is at fixed interest rates, unlike the UK where a quarter of national debt is in index-linked bonds and so repayments have shot up due to higher inflation.

The UK spends more than 10 per cent of tax revenue on debt repayment while in the Republic it is less than 3 per cent.

The States budget surplus was forecast in the recent budget to be 2.7 per cent of GNI* (the aggregate which excluded the distortions caused by multinationals) and 4.4 per cent in 2025 and 2026.

However, the recent shortfalls in corporation tax and pressures on health spending are likely to reduce these forecasts and it is worth noting the Department of Finance estimates that were all the excess corporation tax to disappear, the exchequer would be in deficit.

The UK tax burden will rise towards 37.7 per cent of GDP over the coming years. Photograph: Getty Images

The headline-grabbing part of the autumn statement for the public was a cut in the main national insurance rate by 2 percentage points from January to 10 per cent.

This will benefit taxpayers. However, it will be more than offset by the impact of the classic budget stealth tax the impact of non-indexation of tax bands and credits which will increase the tax burden on those in work.

If these are not adjusted for inflation, then the tax take rises as wages increase in response to inflation. Economists call this fiscal drag. The impact varies across different income levels.

But taxes on income are set to rise with 4 million additional workers paying income tax by 2028/29 and 3 million more moving to the higher rate. So despite the national insurance cut, the tax burden is set to rise to a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP by 2029-29.

The Resolution Foundation, a think tank, has worked out that because of the interplay of the social insurance and tax systems, the only groups who will be better off will be those earning between 11,000 and 13,000 and between 42,000 and 52,000.

Comparison with the Republic: The Irish income tax system is not adjusted automatically for inflation either, so taxpayers are reliant on ministers for finance increasing them each year if they are not to move into higher tax brackets and see the real value of credits eroded. This year credits and the standard band were increased and the USC was cut.

But this stealth tax has also acted as a quiet collector for Ireland over the years and a key question for parties in the forthcoming general election campaign is whether they would index the income tax system for inflation each year. Meanwhile, some modest PRSI increases have been flagged here to keep the social insurance fund in surplus.

The OBR calculates that the UK tax burden will rise towards 37.7 per cent of GDP over the coming years. From having a significantly lower tax burden over the years, this would move it up towards Irish-style overall tax levels. However, bodies such as the fiscal council have warned that the Irish tax take will have to rise in the years ahead to pay for the costs of ageing and the climate transition.

[Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier: The EU is not the same one the UK left]

An interesting point is that Irelands tax take is boosted by corporation tax, much of it based on activity outside the country. Excluding corporation tax, the overall taxation burden in the UK has now, on some calculations, edged above Ireland.

Spending in the UK is forecast to fall as a share of the economy from 44.8 per cent to 42.7 per cent of GDP, but to remain around 3 per cent of GDP above its pre-pandemic level.

However, serious questions have been raised about the likelihood of achieving planned reductions in spending by government departments and local authorities, many already squeezed for cash.

The OBR says that if service levels to the public are not to decline, then big and unlikely increases in public sector productivity are going to be needed. The likelihood is that services will remain under pressure.

Meanwhile, capital spending is to remain where it is in cash terms, implying a real decline. Instead, the government is trying to encourage private sector investment through an extension of a tax write-off for investment spending beyond its previous end date of 2026 the other costly measure in addition to the national insurance cut.

The key question for Irish policymakers is whether spending can keep heading higher if tax revenue growth slows.

This will have some impact on investment and growth and on the long-term potential of the economy to expand but the OBR judges it will be marginal enough.

Comparison with the Republic: Government spending is expected to continue heading higher in Ireland and forecasts for this year and next are already under pressure due to higher health expenditure.

State capital spending is also budgeted to keep rising from 17 billion this year to over 23 billion by 2026. The key question for Irish policymakers is whether spending can keep heading higher if tax revenue growth slows.

One figure stands out in the OBR assessment. It is that living standards as measured by real household disposable income per capita are forecast to be 3.5 per cent lower in 2024-25 than their pre-pandemic level. This would be the largest fall since records began in the 1950s.

It would be 2027/2028 when living standards per capita get back to their pre-pandemic level. So despite the headline measures in the autumn statement, slow growth and a rising tax burden will hold down British living standards. The next government will also face an almost-immediate choice between cutting spending or hiking taxes, given the unrealistic spending figures in the latest document. This could be a more difficult job if corporation tax growth stalls.

Overall UK growth is sluggish, with GDP forecast by the OBR to rise by just 0.7 per cent next year and 1.4 per cent in 2025. The Irish domestic economy is expected to grow by 2.2 per cent next year, according to the Department of Finance.

[DUP will not get all it wants in post-Brexit trade talks, says former leader]

Here, household living standards have been rising, but mainly due to the fact that more people are at work, as inflation has eaten into the spending power of workers.

The prospects for the next Irish government look better than their UK counterparts, but it may see the forecast budget surpluses from 2025 on reduce sharply if the corporation tax fall-off evident in recent months continues. The UK experience shows how difficult a negative public finance cycle can be to break.

A key goal for Irish policymakers is to make sure that the current positive position of the public finances is maintained.

Read the original here:

Cliff Taylor: Post-Brexit, the UK's different economic direction to Ireland's is underlined - The Irish Times

Cognitive Skills Linked to Brexit Votes – Neuroscience News

Posted on by

Summary: A new study suggests a correlation between higher cognitive abilities and voting Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Analyzing data from 3,183 UK couples, the study found that individuals with higher cognitive skills, as well as those with spouses possessing higher cognitive abilities, were more likely to vote Remain.

The research, which controlled for various socioeconomic and personality traits, adds to the evidence that higher cognitive abilities may help in recognizing and resisting misinformation.

This study highlights the potential impact of cognitive skills on political decisions and susceptibility to misinformation.

Key Facts:

Source: PLOS

A new analysis suggests that a person with higher cognitive ability may have been more likely to vote Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum, and that a spouses cognitive skills may also be linked to Brexit voting decisions.

Chris Dawson and Paul Baker of the University of Bath, UK, present these findings in the open-access journalPLOS ONEon November 22, 2023.

Having higher cognitive ability has previously been associated with a greater tendency to recognize and resist misinformation. Studies have also shown that the UK public received a large volume of misinformation about the referendum prior to voting for the UK to withdraw from the EU (Brexit).

However, while a growing body of research has investigated potential links between peoples Brexit votes and socioeconomic, sociodemographic, and psychological factors, less research has addressed the potential role of cognitive ability in their decisions.

Dawson and Baker analyzed data on 3,183 heterosexual UK couples collected as part of a large survey study called Understanding Society. They examined whether there were any links between participants reporting that they had voted Leave or Remain and their cognitive abilityas measured by their performance on a variety of tasks.

The researchers statistically accounted for other factors that could also be linked to voting decisions, such as socioeconomic and sociodemographic traits, political preferences, and a widely studied set of personality traits known as the Big Five.

The analysis revealed a strong statistical link between higher cognitive ability and having voted Remain. In addition, people whose spouse had higher cognitive ability were significantly more likely to vote Remain. In cases where one spouse voted Remain and the other Leave, having significantly higher cognitive ability than ones spouse was associated with an even higher chance of voting to Remain.

The researchers note possible underlying explanations for their findings. For instance, misinformation about the referendum could have complicated decision making for people with low cognitive ability. They also suggest the need for ways to avoid such complications in the face of increasing amounts of misinformation.

The authors add: This study adds to existing academic evidence showing that low cognitive ability makes people more susceptible to misinformation and disinformation. People with lower cognitive ability and analytical thinking skills find it harder to detect and discount this type of information.

Author: Hanna Abdallah Source: PLOS Contact: Hanna Abdallah PLOS Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: Open access. Cognitive ability and voting behaviour in the 2016 UK referendum on European Union membership by Chris Dawson et al. PLOS ONE

Abstract

Cognitive ability and voting behaviour in the 2016 UK referendum on European Union membership

On June 23rd2016 the UK voted to leave the European Union. The period leading up to the referendum was characterized by a significant volume of misinformation and disinformation.

Existing literature has established the importance of cognitive ability in processing and discounting (mis/dis) information in decision making.

We use a dataset of couples within households from a nationally representative UK survey to investigate the relationship between cognitive ability and the propensity to vote Leave / Remain in the 2016 UK referendum on European Union membership.

We find that a one standard deviation increase in cognitive ability, all else being equal, increases the likelihood of a Remain vote by 9.7%. Similarly, we find that an increase in partners cognitive ability further increases the respondents likelihood of a Remain vote (7.6%).

In a final test, restricting our analysis to couples who voted in a conflicting manner, we find that having a cognitive ability advantage over ones partner increases the likelihood of voting Remain (10.9%).

An important question then becomes how to improve individual and household decision making in the face of increasing amounts of (mis/dis) information.

Read more here:

Cognitive Skills Linked to Brexit Votes - Neuroscience News

Higher Cognitive Ability Linked to Voting Against Brexit, Study Finds – Technology Networks

Posted on by

Register for free to listen to this article

Thank you. Listen to this article using the player above.

Want to listen to this article for FREE?

Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.

People with higher cognitive ability may have been more likely to vote to Remain during the Brexit referendum a vote that decided whether the United Kingdom (UK) should leave or remain a member of the European Union according to a new study published in PLOS.

In June 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether it should remain in or leave the European Union, culminating in a close vote in which 51.9% of voters opted to leave, with 48.1% voting to remain.

The referendum campaign was fraught with controversy and was incredibly polarizing among the British public. The results were a shock to the economy, causing one of the largest single-day losses in the FTSE markets and the value of the British Pound Sterling.

Since the vote, academic studies have been trying to understand the results by studying voters socioeconomic, sociodemographic and psychological characteristics, seeking to draw associations between voting either Leave or Remain. However, the potential role of voters cognitive abilities has not been thoroughly explored.

The link between cognitive ability and voting behavior in the referendum has always featured in an anecdotal type of way in the UK, mainly on social media platforms, said Dr. Chris Dawson, lead author of the study and associate professor of management, marketing, business and society at the University of Bath, in an interview with PLOS. Given this narrative, we thought it would be interesting to see if there was any empirical evidence to support it.

The researchers analyzed data from Understanding Society a large survey of over 3,000 heterosexual couples from the UK. This is a nationally representative sample so it can speak to these sorts of sensitive research questions with validity, said Dawson.

In one part of Understanding Society, cognitive function was measured using five tasks that assessed factors such as working memory, verbal fluency and fluid reasoning. In another part, respondents were asked to record whether they voted Leave or Remain in the EU referendum.

Subscribe to Technology Networks daily newsletter, delivering breaking science news straight to your inbox every day.

The teams analysis revealed a strong link between higher cognitive ability test results and voting Remain. Our main finding is that for those lowest on cognitive ability, only 40% voted Remain, whereas 73% of those highest on cognitive ability voted Remain, Dawson explained.

We also showed that this difference, while smaller, still emerged when we controlled for individual differences in income, personality, age, gender, education, political views, newspaper readership and a variety of other socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors, he continued.

Additionally, they found that couples within households were highly interdependent; respondents whose spouses had higher cognitive ability were significantly more likely to have voted Remain. Meanwhile, for couples in which one partner voted Remain and the other voted Leave, having a higher cognitive ability than ones spouse was linked to an even higher likelihood of voting Remain.

Nonetheless, Dawson acknowledges that there are possible underlying explanations for their findings, such as dis- and misinformation: We hope people take note of our research findings. Media outlets have always circulated some misleading information, but the rise of social media and the internet has sharply increased the scale and accessibility of misinformation and disinformation and of increasingly divisive messages.

It is important to understand that our findings are based on average differences: there exists a huge amount of overlap between the distributions of Remain and Leave cognitive abilities. We calculated that approximately 36% of Leave voters had higher cognitive ability than the average (mean) Remain voter, Dawson explained. But what our results do imply is that misinformation about the referendum could have complicated decision-making, especially for people with low cognitive ability.

Reference: Dawson C, Baker PL. Cognitive ability and voting behavior in the 2016 UK referendum on European Union membership. PLOS. 2023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289312

This article is a rework of a press release issued by PLOS. Material has been edited for length and content.

Read this article:

Higher Cognitive Ability Linked to Voting Against Brexit, Study Finds - Technology Networks

The British businesses being strangled by Brexit red tape – The New European

Posted on by

Brexiteers pledged that leaving the bloc would cut unnecessary bureaucracy for British businesses. But, according to a new report commissioned by the European Movement UK, companies are now getting strangled by red tape.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the Business Impact Report 74% said that leaving the EU had affected their business very negatively and more than half stated that new red tape had made trading with the EU increasingly difficult, arguing that it had become the single biggest obstacle to doing business with Europe. Meanwhile, 40% highlighted issues with finding staff since losing freedom of movement

The research by European Movement UK shows just how much ongoing damage is still being done by Brexit. Devastating barriers to trading with the EU have forced some companies out of business. Red tape, lack of workers, huge hikes in overheads Britains small and medium enterprises have sustained a disproportionate amount of the damage, said Sir Vince Cable, the former Lib Dem leader who is now president of European Movement UK.

Almost 2000 businesses responded to the survey, out of which a staggering 94% said leaving the single market and customs union had harmed their operations. To tackle this, hundreds of companies said that they were forced to reduce their workforce hours or even make staff redundant. In some cases, they were forced to close entirely and a woman named in the report only as Carol was one of them.

She owned a bespoke lingerie business in the South West but had to shut it down because of red tape. She said in the report: I did everything I could to prepare for Brexit. The reality of sending garments to the EU was a nightmare. I had goods that spent ages in transit and were then returned for incorrect customs information. The business was losing money, so I decided to close. Brexit was the final nail in the coffin.

The damage has been felt across all sectors, including engineering, agriculture, hospitality and finance with owners also reporting that they had lost business in the EU and new red tape had made them uncompetitive.

Hugh Chapman, who runs Long Mynd Cider in Bishops Castle, Shropshire, was another respondent damaged by Brexit. Chapman said a Europe-wide organisation was interested in buying and distributing his products, however, the life-changing deal then fell through. The administration around Brexit meant they were no longer interested. Its economically impossible to trade with Europe at present, he said.

Darren Farrell, who runs DARJAC Engineering in Essex and specialises in servicing high-end cars, said trade had vanished for his business because of Brexit. Within nine months of the UK government signing the Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the EU, seven out of ten EU suppliers said that they could no longer support third country shipping & warranty, he said. We cant move our customers vehicles to race events on the EU mainland without huge cost, including temporary export permits that take many hours. Two years on, we could no longer support the losses. Our business is finished.

Go here to see the original:

The British businesses being strangled by Brexit red tape - The New European

Changes to data protection laws to unlock post-Brexit opportunity – GOV.UK

Posted on by

A raft of common-sense changes to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will build an innovative data protection regime in the UK, crack down on benefit fraud cheats, and allow the country to realise new post-Brexit freedoms while delivering new economic opportunities to the tune of 5.9 billion.

The changes include new powers to require data from third parties, particularly banks and financial organisations, to help the UK government reduce benefit fraud and save the taxpayer up to 600 million over the next five years. Currently, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can only undertake fraud checks on a claimant on an individual basis, where there is already a suspicion of fraud.

The new proposals would allow regular checks to be carried out on the bank accounts held by benefit claimants to spot increases in their savings which push them over the benefit eligibility threshold, or when people send more time overseas than the benefit rules allow for. This will help identify fraud take action more quickly. To make sure that privacy concerns are at the heart of these new measures, only a minimum amount of data will be accessed and only in instances which show a potential risk of fraud and error.

Another measure offers vital reassurance and support to families as they grieve the loss of a child. In cases where a child has died through suicide, a proposed data preservation process would require social media companies to keep any relevant personal data which could then be used in subsequent investigations or inquests.

Current rules mean that social media companies arent obliged to hold onto this data for longer than is needed, meaning that data which could prove vital to coroner investigations could be deleted as part of a platforms routine maintenance. The change tabled today represents an important step for families coming to terms with the loss of a loved one, and takes further steps to help ensure harmful content has no place online.

The use of biometric data, such as fingerprints, to strengthen national security is also covered by the amendments, with the ability of Counter Terrorism Police to hold onto the biometrics of individuals who pose a potential threat, and which are supplied by organisations such as Interpol, being bolstered.

This would see officers being able to retain biometric data for as long as an INTERPOL notice is in force, matching this process up with INTERPOLs own retention rules. The amendments will also ensure that where an individual has a foreign conviction, their biometrics will be able to be retained indefinitely in the same way as is already possible for individuals with UK convictions this is particularly important where foreign nationals may have existing convictions for serious offences, including terrorist offences.

Maintaining the UKs high standards of data protection is central to both the wider Bill and the proposed amendments which have been laid today.

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Michelle Donelan, said:

Britain has seized a key Brexit opportunity boosting small businesses, protecting consumers and cracking down on criminal enterprises like nuisance calling and benefit fraud.

These changes protect our privacy and data while also injecting common sense into the system - whether it is cracking down on cookies, scrapping pointless paperwork which stifles productivity, tackling benefit fraud or making it easier to protect our citizens from criminals.

These changes help to establish the UK as a world-leading data economy; one that puts consumers and businesses at the centre and removes the one-size-fits-all barriers that have held many British businesses back.

The Bills focus is to create an innovative and flexible data protection regime which will maintain the UKs high standards of data protection, streamline processes for companies, strengthen national security, and support grieving families. Making it easier to use personal data which will improve efficiency, lead to better public services, and enable new innovations across science, innovation, and technology.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mel Stride MP, said:

These new powers send a very clear message to benefit fraudsters we wont stand for it. These people are taking the taxpayer for a ride and it is right that we do all we can to bring them to justice.

These powers will be used proportionately, ensuring claimants data is safely protected while rooting out fraudsters at the earliest possible opportunity.

Home Secretary, James Cleverly, said:

My priority is to continue cutting crime and ensuring the public is protected from security threats. Law enforcement and our security partners must have access to the best possible tools and data, including biometrics, to continue to keep us safe.

This Bill will improve the efficiency of data protection for our security and policing partnersencouraging better use of personal information and ensuring appropriate safeguards for privacy.

The amendments tabled today show the practical steps being taken by the UK government to improve how the nation uses and accesses personal data, capitalising on the UKs departure from the European Union to introduce measures which will protect the public purse, strengthen national security, and offer important support to grieving families.

These amendments will also help the Bill realise its ambition of bulldozing burdens for businesses and removing restrictions for researchers, ensuring new advances in science, innovation, and technology can be fuelled by more practical ways to access data.

Full list of amendments tabled can be found here.

These amendments will be considered by the House of Commons at Report next Wednesday (29 November).

Further information on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill can be found here.

See the rest here:

Changes to data protection laws to unlock post-Brexit opportunity - GOV.UK

Brexit backer Dyson says hypocrisy claim over HQ move abroad … – Reuters

Posted on by

James Dyson arrives at the High Court in London, Britain, November 21, 2023. REUTERS/Hollie Adams Acquire Licensing Rights

LONDON, Nov 21 (Reuters) - James Dyson, the billionaire inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, told London's High Court a 2022 newspaper column that branded him a hypocrite who had "screwed" Britain was "not only wrong but incredibly harmful" to his reputation.

Dyson is suing Daily Mirror publisher MGN over print and online articles by Brian Reade that lambasted him for moving the global head office of his company from Britain to Singapore after championing the economic benefits of Brexit.

Under the headline: "Message to young folks today is that cheats do prosper", Reade included Dyson in a rogues' gallery of people whom it was alleged had acted illegally or dishonestly, the 76-year-old said in a witness statement published on Tuesday.

Dyson said that, as someone who had invested heavily in Britain and its young people, he found the criticism "particularly damaging and distressing".

MGN argued in its defence that an honest person could hold the opinion that Dyson was a hypocrite, given he had publicly supported the benefits of Britain leaving the European Union and then moved his company's global head office abroad after Brexit.

Dyson's approach to the lawsuit was "wholly disproportionate and abusive" and MGN would seek to have the case thrown out of court at the end of the trial, MGN's lawyer Adrienne Page said in court filings.

Dyson's company, which makes vacuum cleaners, air purifiers and other appliances, said in January 2019 it was moving its corporate office to Singapore to be closer to its Asian markets.

It said at the time the move was not driven by Brexit or by tax, with much of its product development remaining in south west England.

Dyson said on Tuesday that Asia was "logically" the right place for the company, giving its manufacturing and much of its sales were there.

"The decision to establish the global headquarters had nothing to do with Brexit at all, nor did it conflict with or render hypocritical my previous statements, let alone amount to me screwing the country or setting a poor moral example to young people," he said in his statement.

"It simply reflected the long-term commercial reality of Dyson's global business operations."

Reporting by Paul Sandle Additional reporting by Sam Tobin Editing by Mark Potter

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read the original:

Brexit backer Dyson says hypocrisy claim over HQ move abroad ... - Reuters

Confidence in UK economy lower than at Brexit referendum – Proactive Investors UK

Posted on by

About Jessica Davies

Jessica has spent 15 years covering private and public markets, business, law and investment in the transition to cleaner energy.She spent several years as an editor at Dow Jones, covering private equity and private markets, where she led the team that broke the news of alleged misuse of funds at Abraaj Group. During her time at the company, she sat on the Women @ Dow Jones committee.She also spent four years as an editor and journalist at Centaur Media PLC covering investment in... Read more

Proactive financial news and online broadcast teams provide fast, accessible, informative and actionable business and finance news content to a global investment audience. All our content is produced independently by our experienced and qualified teams of news journalists.

Proactive news team spans the worlds key finance and investing hubs with bureaus and studios in London, New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney and Perth.

We are experts in medium and small-cap markets, we also keep our community up to date with blue-chip companies, commodities and broader investment stories. This is content that excites and engages motivated private investors.

The team delivers news and unique insights across the market including but not confined to: biotech and pharma, mining and natural resources, battery metals, oil and gas, crypto and emerging digital and EV technologies.

Proactive has always been a forward looking and enthusiastic technology adopter.

Our human content creators are equipped with many decades of valuable expertise and experience. The team also has access to and use technologies to assist and enhance workflows.

Proactive will on occasion use automation and software tools, including generative AI. Nevertheless, all content published by Proactive is edited and authored by humans, in line with best practice in regard to content production and search engine optimisation.

More here:

Confidence in UK economy lower than at Brexit referendum - Proactive Investors UK

Brexit-hating Manfred Weber launches WAR of words on Spain as … – Montana Right Now

Posted on by

Europhile and Brexit hating Manfred Weber has hit out at Spain and its dealing with Catalan separatists for power. Wading into the domestic policies of the country, Weber raged: "When corruption, violence and even terrorism go unpunished, it breaks the rule of law. "When people in Spain are no longer equal before the law, it breaks Rule of Law. We will not be silent about what is happening in Spain."Spain is currently in the throes of political turmoil which is threatening to spill into the EU. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has been attacked by European conservatives, including Weber accusing him of undermining the rule of law of the EU by offering an amnesty to Catalan separatists for political support. Following months of a political statement since a chaotic July election, Sanchez announced a deal with the Catalan separatists. Sanchez is seeking to form a minority government with their backing. But the deal has not gone down well in the EU with some suggesting that the deal would set a dangerous precedent. Weber said: "Spanish civil society, lawyers organizations, the highest court, they are all worried about the breakdown of the rule of law in Spain following the government agreement. "This is not a party issue, it's a rule of law issue. The left is silent in this House, but Europe is not."The EU has been accused of meddling in domestic politics by socialist allies of the Prime Minister. Socialist lawmaker Iratxe Garca, who leads the Socialists group in the Parliament, told reporters over the weekend during a party gathering in Mlaga, Spain. Citizens voted and the majority in Spain say that they dont want a government between conservatives and the far-right.Yesterday, the new cabinet of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez take office and attend first meeting after forming new government. Sanchez, who won a vote in parliament to clinch another term last week after months of negotiations, added nine new faces to the 22-person cabinet.Spain's King Felipe swore in the new cabinet in which most of the senior ministers retain their positions.

See original here:

Brexit-hating Manfred Weber launches WAR of words on Spain as ... - Montana Right Now

The autumn statement shows Britain can’t afford Brexit – The New European

Posted on by

After weeks of leaks, Jeremy Hunts autumn statement held few surprises. Nor is it particularly shocking that the chancellor will attempt to keep Brexits impact on the UK economy out of the debate in the days to come.

No amount of personal or business tax cuts will undo the damage that Brexit has done and continues to do to our economy, said the European Movement UK after Hunts speech. The true extent of the economic damage of Brexit will take 15 years to fully materialise. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts that by 2035 the economy will be between 5-6% smaller than it would be if we had not left the European Union. This means that if it were not for Brexit our economy would be much stronger than the economic picture presented by the chancellor in the autumn statement.

According to the group, Brexit is already costing each person in the UK about 850 a year and the situation is only going to worsen. The cost is set to reach 2300 per person, per year over the next decade. In a report released last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) estimated that this will increase to 5 to 6% of GDP a year (around 115-135 billion at todays prices) by 2035.

Britain cannot afford Brexit. Budget tinkering cannot hide that elephant in the room, said Sir Nick Harvey, CEO of European Movement UK. He added: If Jeremy Hunt wants to set the UK back on a path to growth and put more money in British pockets, he should announce a clear medium-term plan to get the UK back in the single market and invite other parties to sign up to it. That plan would take time to deliver. But it would start to restore investor confidence overnight.

Last week, the European Movement UK published its Business Impact Report detailing the post-Brexit experiences of over 1700 businesses. Just over 93% of businesses surveyed said that Brexit has affected them negatively, while 95.5% said that they would benefit from regaining access to the EU Single Market.

According to the EM UK, if the UK was still a member of the European Union todays autumn statement could have addressed the cost-of-living crisis, the impact of Covid on our economy and the inflation crisis. Instead, there was a Brexit-shaped elephant in the room.

Read more:

The autumn statement shows Britain can't afford Brexit - The New European

Brexit is not the problem, Europe’s lack of liquidity is – The TRADE – The TRADE News

Posted on by

The UK and the European Union must stop focusing on post-Brexit divergence and convergence and re-align their interests to tackle stagnant flows in Europe in comparison with the US and Asia.

That was the key takeaway from the FIX conference that took place in Paris earlier this week. Since their split at the start of 2020, Europe and the UK have been focused on emerging as the victor of Brexit with home of the European financial hub to be in either the City of London or Paris.

However, at what cost? As noted by panellists and audience members on Tuesday, the more important conversation to be had is how to boost volumes and liquidity in Europe. In a live poll asking whether regulatory change could devastate Paris or favour London in the coming years, around 72% of the audience voted no. In other words, its not a zero-sum game to be won.

The thing that will likely devastate Europe if not taken in hand is the level of fragmentation in the region made worse by Brexit and the stunted growth it has seen in the last few years. Unlike the US and Asia, Europe has produced stagnant volumes year on year, driven by several macroeconomic factors and a suffering IPO market.

Contributing to this lack of liquidity is the fact that a growing list of firms are now competing for a portion of a pie that itself is not growing alongside said list. Market structure in the US and Europe is starkly different. Europe has three times the number of exchanges, 10 times the number of listing venues and 20 times as many post-trade providers.

Speaking to this, Simon Dove, managing director, head of liquidity at Instinet, said: The challenge in Europe is that while competition has been positive it has also driven fragmentation which can make us less attractive versus the US and Asia. At the moment were all talking about volume how do we get more volume?

Brexit has created additional frictional cost for a market that is already struggling. And the EU and UK firms must create a game plan as to how to grow the region together as opposed to continue fighting over the remaining scraps.

Its a big world, Simon Gallagher, head of global sales at Euronext and chief executive of Euronext London, told The TRADE. There is interest in the UK and Europe as neighbours as we compete against the US and Asia. Its a realisation on both sides that we need each other and need to get creative with a symbiotic relationship. Its the last thing Europe needs, putting extra frictional cost into the system.

Brexit the good and the bad

The UKs departure from the European Union, while costly thanks to the need for duplicated services to support European clients, has also had some relatively positive impacts on the way that firms on either side of the channel operate. The conclusion its not been as bad as everyone thought it was going to be from a trading perspective.

From a trading perspective, the markets were well equipped [for Brexit], said one individual who wished to remain anonymous. The situation is less drastic than we expected. Not much has changed, apart from perhaps the way some firms communicate with the sell-side.

While many predicted the impacts of Brexit could have been catastrophic, the reality is that financial services in Europe were previously skewed too heavily towards the City. Many participants have subsequently suggested that the spreading of volumes to new centres such as Paris and Amsterdam have in fact future-proofed the resilience of the markets.

The benefit for the overall industry is that were more resilient. We have two financial centres instead of one, said one panellist.

Also noted during the Paris FIX conference, was the suggestion that many European firms were appreciative of the increased on the ground and local coverage that Brexit had enforced. Some individuals called it the natural next step for markets.

Financial services were over-centred in London. Clients appreciate that firms have more local coverage, said another panellist. Having an extra step between Paris and London is another link in the chain. The way the desk is set up you have the same methods of communication whether youre in a different room or different city. Nothing has really changed; there hasnt been a duplication of roles.

That is not to say of course that Brexit has been all roses. Thanks to the requirement for European firms to be serviced by European entities, institutions have been forced to duplicate their operations on the either side of the channel. While this hasnt necessarily resulted in the duplication of personnel and roles it has meant a duplication of implementation costs, a moving of infrastructure into the Bloc and increased cost around connectivity and compliance with regulation.

This unsurprisingly has proved to be an expensive and arduous process and has created an environment where larger firms that can shoulder the cost more easily have thrived, perhaps even sparking some of the consolidation seen in the last few years.

It is also likely to encourage further outsourcing. Noted during a panel exploring consolidation and competition during FIX Paris, was a recent piece of research that found that 20% of firms in Europe had outsourced part of their dealing activities and a further 20-25% were exploring doing so.

Brexit created unnecessary costs for end investors. There is a cost attached to implementation decisions made post-Brexit and this favours larger players, said one individual.

Read more Carrot or stick? How the EU plans to reduce reliance on UK CCPs for derivatives clearing

One part of the post-Brexit tussle that does have the potential to hamper institutions is the proposed active clearing account mandates suggested by EU regulators at the end of 2022. In December, the European Commission published a proposal as part of Emir 3.0 regulation that would require all participants to hold active accounts at European CCPs for clearing at least a portion of certain derivative contracts.

The decision has been argued against by many institutions and trading associations who claim the move will hamper competition in Euro-denominated products by encouraging participants to take certain uncompetitive prices just to meet a minimum threshold of activity.

The mandate to clear on EU houses will bifurcate liquidity in cleared swaps, said one individual at FIX Paris on Tuesday. Thats an attention point for us and we will be watching it carefully. It could increase costs and decrease liquidity.

This is certainly true and something to watch. However, FIX panellists and speakers were united in their stance that further splitting liquidity between the two regions is not the answer to the problem. Brexit is not, and should not, be the problem. The issue is adding new growth and liquidity to the region. And as close neighbours, the UK and the European Union should be facing issues around global volumes as one.

See the rest here:

Brexit is not the problem, Europe's lack of liquidity is - The TRADE - The TRADE News

A house divided against itself cannot stand: chaos over Brexit – North East Bylines

Posted on by

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

A House divided against itself Cannot Stand is a famous speech by Abraham Lincoln in 1858. For a country to be prosperous and successful it must cohere and find common ground. Countries that choose confrontation and wedge issues are less successful, especially over the long term. America was descending into chaos at the time, and the American Civil War started a few years later. Once the War was over, the US cohered, entered a period of unprecedented growth, becoming the worlds dominant power some decades later.

This piece will not only look at how chaos/coherence played out over Brexit, but look over a longer period and makes one major recommendation.

As weve seen, the referendum was incredibly divisive. Could the UK cohere and form cross-party or even Tory Party consensus after the shock of a Leave victory? Sadly no. The chaotic period after the Brexit referendum has been comprehensively covered in The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit by Meg Russel and Lisa James, with a good summary on Raf Behrs pod Politics on the Couch and also in the TV series: Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos. The ongoing Covid Enquiry also paints a view of utter chaos in Downing St. when Johnson was PM, which had significant implications for Brexit (See Prof Chris Greys Brexit Blog What the Covid Inquiry tells us about Brexit).

Britain was about to enter its most difficult challenge since WWII: negotiating Brexit to gain the best deal possible for the UK against a much stronger adversary, the EU. Did Britain understand its relative negotiating strength or the battle lines? It seems not. The road to a successful Brexit went as much through Dublin as Brussels. Yet there was minimal understanding of this in London, particularly in Brexit Circles. The wicked problem was always going to be Northern Ireland and how to protect the Good Friday Agreement after Brexit. It was almost totally ignored during the referendum campaign.

An excellent early book on Brexit is Chris Cooks Defeated by Brexit (serialised in Tortoise Media). The very first lines are: The Brexit negotiations are not really about the UK and 27 other countries they are about Britains long and troubled relationship with Ireland. And while Dublin was prepared for that, it took London completely by surprise.

Irish politics has always been more consensus-driven, and British politics more confrontational. This is partly cultural, but is primarily driven by the difference between the voting systems: FPTP in the UKs case and STV in Irelands case. The Brexit challenge, however, drove both countries towards extremes. The UK descended into chaos. Ireland was never more coherent and united. Ireland was well prepared and had near unanimity across government, all political parties, the civil and foreign service and broader society. The polar opposite of the UK, coherence rather than chaos.

It was difficult to see how Brexit would work if the EU held together. There was a Brexiter belief that Ireland could be the first to peel off. Unquestionably, Ireland would believe in Brexit, and surely Irexit would follow? The first domino, possibly followed by the Netherlands or Denmark? Surely a world-leading G7 country which held all the cards, would prevail over Ireland, totally dependent on Britain. Ireland, according to Brexiters, was a backwater which survived on exporting agricultural products to Britain. 90% of Irelands exports according to prominent Brexiter Digby Jones went to the UK.

Ten days after the referendum, I flew over to Dublin and could take the temperature. Would Irexit be on the cards? Apparently not, it seemed. In fact, the exact opposite. Brexit was considered a catastrophic mistake, but the UK was a sovereign country and could do as it wished (though there was deep disquiet about England bullying Scotland and Northern Ireland, which voted Remain).

Ireland being sucked back into the UKs orbit filled people with horror.

Later at a meeting at UCD there was unanimous agreement on the following

The only disagreement was the motivation of the DUP in supporting Brexit. It was entirely logical that Republicans would support Brexit, as discussed in post#3, but bizarre that Unionists would. Some argued the DUP never thought Leave would win, and that an orgy of British Nationalist flag-shagging was both irresistible and risk-free. Others that they secretly wanted a land border and destroy the GFA, which they hoped Brexit would deliver. Others thought it pointless to try to comprehend their 17th-century mindset.

There is a myth that the Irish are embittered and hate the English, but that is totally untrue. The Irish and English get along very well. Its only the Tories we dislike, and even then, there is understanding that for a functional democracy, there is a need for a centre-right party, in European terms, an European Peoples Party (EPP) party. We have our own one in Fine Gael. We could agree to disagree with the One Nation faction, people like Rory Stewart, Dominic Grieve Davids Gauke and Liddington, for example, but the swing of the Tory party to the far right was frightening and repellant. What little appetite there ever was for rejoining the UK vanished long ago. There is, of course, a lot of history, some in my piece here, but it is increasingly driven by pragmatism rather than emotion. A quick comparison will reinforce this point.

Comparing countries can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many well-respected international league tables. Economy, health, education and lack of inequality are clearly important. But there are other areas, such as the quality of democracy, freedom, press freedom, and lack of corruption. Given both Ireland and the UK consider themselves as trading nations (and the UK a great one), a trade comparison is also useful.

One standard measure for the economy is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, but that is not a good measure for Ireland. Gross national Income (GNI) is far less distorting.

On economy, health, education and lack of inequality, there is an international benchmark that uses GNI, the UN Human Development Index (HDI) and the Inequality-adjusted version the IHDI. On the HDI ranking the UK is 18th and Ireland 8th. On the IHDI ranking, the UK is 16th and Ireland 6th.

On democracy, the most respected measure is probably the Democracy Index produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This ranks the UK as 18th and Ireland 8th.

On freedom, possibly the best measure is the Human Freedom Index (HFI), produced by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Liberales Institut at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. This ranks the UK 14th and Ireland as 5th.

On press freedom, Reporters without Borders produces an annual report: the World Press Freedom Index, which ranks the UK 26th and Ireland 2nd.

On corruption, a respected measure is the Corruption Perception Index produced by Transparency International, which ranks the UK 18th and Ireland 10th.

On trade, a straightforward measure is the export ratio. There are a number of trade databases; two of the best are the Atlas of Economic Complexity (Harvard) and the Observatory of Economic Complexity (MIT). I would recommend both, but for the latest data (2022) Ireland exports 50% of the UK in goods and 70% of the UK in goods and services.

Another measure is balance of trade. Ireland runs a major surplus and the UK a major deficit. Macrotends has Ireland with the 3rd largest trade surplus in 2022 and the UK the 3rd largest trade deficit. (+$198bn/-$107bn).

Ireland is a clear winner, consistently in the top 10 with the UK in the top 20, apart from the Press Freedom Index, which is troubling for the UK. The UK exports considerably more than Ireland, but with 13x the population. Per capita, Ireland exports about 6.5x the UK in goods and 9x as much in goods and services. Perhaps the UK is not the great trading nation it thinks it is? Particularly given the stark difference in balance of trade.

For a lot of the time, the chaos in Westminster was all-consuming, but the important battle was external rather than internal.

The battle was fought on two fronts: Brussels and Washington. Luck was on Irelands side, with the appointment of Barnier as chief EU negotiator. The European Peoples Party (EPP) was the dominant force in the European Parliament. Barnier was an EPP member, as was Fine Gael, the government party of Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney. Barnier was also very familiar with Northern Ireland, so could hit the ground running. Networking was used to the full. The Tory party had foolishly left the EPP and gone to the Eurosceptic right. They were unplugged. The EU also managed to cohere over Brexit. Keeping the 27 together was Barniers main task. Leaving his brilliant deputy Sabine Weyand to manage technical details. The UK was totally outgunned, even worse, as Chris Kendall says in his blog From the outset, the UK has burned through goodwill as if it were an inexhaustible, ever-renewable resource.

Washington was the other front. Never underestimate the power of the Irish-American lobby (my analysis here). The Irish effort was coherent and compelling. The Brexiter one, the opposite. The Lead envoy for Brexit in the British Embassy in Washington Alex Hall Hall, resigned over the impossibility of her job. She related that Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary claimed in Washington a no-deal Brexit on Ireland would only affect a few farmers with turnips in the back of their trucks. The Americans were utterly unimpressed.

In the chaos, two deals were struck. I was pleasantly surprised by the May/Robbins deal, particularly in terms of defusing issues over the Irish Sea Border. It was a much harder Brexit than many Remainers liked and not enough for hard-line Brexiters. The DUP opposed it, much to Mays bewilderment (the suspicion they wanted a land border in violation of the GFA was reinforced), and the agreement failed to pass in parliament, leading to Mays resignation. The May/Robbins deal kept the entire UK inside the Single Market for goods until the UK wanted to diverge (probably never), in which case the NI Backstop would kick in. This meant no Sea Border. Given that May had ruled out FoM, this arguably split the Four Freedoms and was a significant concession from the EU. Many member states were unhappy. In any event, May could not get the Deal through. May fell, and Johnson became PM.

Enter the Johnson/Frost tag team, high on Get Brexit Done! and machismo bravado to show those foreigners Whats What!. This proved utterly ineffective and counterproductive. The oven-ready deal that was produced was hailed as a triumph and gave Johnson an 80-seat majority in the 2019 GE on 43.6% of the vote. Fatigue had set in, and many just wanted the Brexit nightmare to end.

Sadly, the Johnson/Frost deal was considerably worse for the UK than the May/Robbins deal and a very hard Brexit. Many EU capitals breathed a sigh of relief. It was highly asymmetric in the EUs favour, prioritising goods rather than services. It came with the NI Protocol. A front-stop rather than a backstop and the DUP were predictably extremely unhappy.

Ireland had succeeded in keeping its place fully in the EU and preventing a land border. The Johnson/Frost deal was so poor that no one got what they wanted apart from some Irish Republicans who voted for it. Since the Brexit Referendum the Irish economy has done very well, in contrast to the UK. Ireland achieved its goals of damage limitation but would have far preferred if Brexit had never happened.

A recent book from the EU perspective, and one of the best, is Stefaan de Ryncks, Inside the Deal: How the EU got Brexit Done (video here). There is a lot of detail, and it is much as keen observers might have expected. I survived mainly on a diet of anything produced by Tony Connolly (RTE), Chris Greys Blogspot, and Cakewatch (very good from the Brussels perspective). If, however, your information came from the right-wing press or even the BBC, the book will come as a revelation. The main takeaway is that London was so tied up in internal chaos (and, in the Frost era, delusional exceptionalism), that it never understood the rules of the game and was simply outplayed.

Brexit is the worst systemic failure of UK over the past 50 years. There is, however, a bigger picture and it is worth further exploring why Ireland has been so much more successful than the UK over that period.

After gaining my PhD, I moved from UCD to Sheffield University in 1981. At the time S. Yorkshire alone had a greater industrial output than Ireland, and Yorkshire a greater GDP. Now Ireland has an industrial output 75% of the entire UK and a GDP greater than Yorkshire and Humberside, the North East of England and Scotland combined.

Within the first week at Sheffield, I met an economist in the common room, who said all this heavy industry (coal and steel) would be gone within a decade, and the retraining costs would be astronomical. Ireland is in a perfect position to move to 21st century industries and could easily overtake the UK. Very perceptive, but the former miners and steel workers were not retrained, but left to rot, as indeed were much of the North of England and industrial parts of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Many areas have never really recovered.

The Economist Russell Jones in the Tyranny of Nostalgia, describes the lure of former economic greatness and examines the increasingly desperate search for a panacea over the past 50 years, with erratic changes in direction, of which Brexit was only the latest example (video here), that could arrest the nations relative decline and return the country to its supposed former glories. The Thatcher revolution was another major change in direction.

Ireland had a different path and the respected American economist Noah Smith has recently blogged How Ireland got so rich: Once an underdog, the Emerald Isle is now on top. The true picture is complex, but is there a silver bullet? In the simple Brexiter mind, the answer is obvious Ireland is a Tax haven (ignoring the fact that Ireland is not even in the top 10 and the UK, with its crown dependencies, is peerless, rated by Transparency International as the number 1 tax haven in the world).

Irelands success is down to coherence; instead of moving chaotically, it has made stable progress and has had consensual governance over the period. It is not without its problems, housing is a real issue, partially because the population is rising so rapidly via inward FoM. In 2016 for example, there were 122,515 Poles in Ireland; this per capita was about 70% more than the UK.

This coherence is due to a number of factors, but the silver bullet is probably the electoral system. Not only does the Irish system produce more proportional representation, with candidates needing broad appeal to get transfers. Running on wedge issues does not work.

The current Irish coalition government was elected with votes of about 70% of the electorate. Quite a contrast with the UK, where large parliamentary majorities can be obtained with a much lower share of the vote. The impetus for consensus is also testified to by the fact that the two largest coalition parties are bitter historical rivals who have set aside their differences to share power.

Irish constituencies have between three and five seats. STV maximises choice, voters mark their ballot papers 1,2,3 etc., in order of preference, between as many candidates (and implicitly parties) as they like.

In combination with relatively small constituencies, STVs focus on candidates additionally ensures that a strong constituency link is maintained and most voters have a choice of government and opposition representatives when it comes to raising issues. Indeed, a 1997 study found that Irish TDs (MPs) dedicate more time to constituency work than their British counterparts. This ability to mix proportionality and solid local links keeps the constituency element missing in some other forms of PR.

There are few safe seats and many strong local connections. Many of the big names did not get in on the first count in the most recent GE (2020): Leo Varadkar 5th count, Michel Martin 6th count, Simon Coveney 8th count and Neale Richmond 8th count. All needed broader appeal to get elected. Elections are far more competitive than in the UK FPTP system.

This series started with the GE of 2015 with a narrow Tory majority with 36.8% of the vote, leading to Brexit (part 1). The 2019 GE led to an 80 seat Tory majority on 43.6% of the vote and a hard Brexit. In neither case, a majority of the electorate. 2019 may have been exceptional, but appealing to one section of the population to the exclusion of the majority is democratically unsound.

Wedge issues and culture wars sadly work in the UK. The Tories are increasingly desperate. Wedge issues and culture wars seem to be all they have left. Polarization appears to be getting worse. Rwanda seems deliberately designed to throw red meat to the very worst instincts of many people and is bitterly divisive.

It does seem likely that Labour will win the next GE. That will be an improvement but will not solve the coherence problem. Britain has been left in such a mess after 13 years of Tory government that Labour could become unpopular very quickly and may only serve one term.

If there is a silver bullet, it must be Proportional Representation (PR) and ideally with the Single Transferrable Vote (STV), or what is sometimes known as ranked preference voting. Without the more consensual politics it engenders, Britain seems doomed to eternal division and continuing relative decline.

The series finishes with Part 5, How do We Fix this Brexit Mess?

This article was first published atProgressive Pulse.

Original post:

A house divided against itself cannot stand: chaos over Brexit - North East Bylines

Martin Coleman: UK merger control in the post-Brexit era – GOV.UK

Posted on by

Introduction

I have spent much of my career advising businesses on complex mergers. Now, as chair of the CMAs Panel of independent experts, I preside over a process that has had to adapt to considerable changes in markets and in how we think about competition policy. In both roles one thing has been very clear to me the power granted to decision makers to prohibit mergers is considerable and that power has to be exercised with great responsibility. I propose to talk about how we exercise that responsibility, in particular that we do so in a manner that is demonstrably independent, clearly evidence-based, and procedurally fair.

There are 3 aspects to independence: independence in how we assess mergers; freedom from government intervention and, particularly since Brexit, appropriate cooperation with, but independence from, other global competition authorities.

The UK system is unusual by international standards in that phase 2 decisions are made by independent experts who engage open-mindedly with the cases referred from phase 1. Their background as senior business people, leaders in the professions, academia and consumer advocacy, as well as competition policy, means that they bring strong contextual understanding of issues relevant to modern merger control. This is coupled with a good understanding of merger policy concerns and cutting edge economic and legal thinking, developed at the initial induction, reinforced by a continuous programme of training and knowledge dissemination, and supported by advice from CMA staff, who approach phase 2 without being tied to the phase 1 conclusion. Throughout this process the importance of challenge including challenge to the phase one decision and the views of members of the staff team is hard-wired into the culture of the Panel including through the working methods of individual inquiry groups.

The law requires that at least one member of the Panel must also be a member of the Board. This makes obvious sense given that important aspects of the regime, such as the substantive and procedural guidelines, are agreed by the Board and have to be taken into account by decision-making groups. I make this point because one or two people have suggested that having Panel members on the Board is in some way incompatible with independence. In fact, professionals are perfectly capable of exercising different types of responsibility within complex systems, and there is nothing unusual about decision-makers in specific cases being members of a body that has wider regime-wide responsibilities. For example, serving judges sit on the Sentencing Council which produces binding guidelines on sentencing for the judiciary.

Second, the panel is independent of government. Other than in exceptional public interest cases, there is no role for ministers in merger decisions. I am told by advisers that they are sometimes asked by a client if government lobbying will improve their chances of achieving a successful outcome in the phase 2 process. In my time on the Panel, no minister, official or special adviser has been in touch with group members or staff to seek to influence how a group should decide a merger case. And if this was to ever change, they would be given short shrift. Similarly, media commentaries on mergers are part of what we expect from a free press, but our decision-making is based on the evidence, not media sound bites. A merger party that has confidence in its legal and economic arguments should focus on those rather than wasting everyones time lobbying government which might suggest a lack of confidence in the underlying strength of the case that the CMA has to decide.

Third, the panel is independent of other agencies. We receive different messages concerning international alignment. On occasions we are accused of being too closely aligned with other agencies and at other times we are criticised for not being sufficiently consistent with others. Our position is this. We do not lobby other agencies to achieve a particular outcome and they do not lobby us. We recognise that in many cases parties and the process benefit from coordination with other jurisdictions, and we strive to achieve this where it is possible within the legal framework. This is why we generally seek to align our timing and processes with other agencies to the extent we can, and why we ask merger parties to provide waivers that facilitate the exchange of information with other agencies. But ultimately, we have our own statutory duties: to prevent anti-competitive mergers for the benefit of UK consumers. And where the evidence points to a particular outcome, we shall not hesitate to exercise our responsibilities even if that means diverging from other authorities.

Mergers regimes are forward looking. We seek to anticipate what would happen in a market if the merger proceeds compared to what might happen if it did not. As with all the CMAs work, our decisions are made on the basis of significant volumes of evidence and data and applying legal and economic principles.

In phase 2 investigations, this exercise is invariably complex. Clearly unproblematic mergers do not usually come to us. Obviously anti-competitive mergers are also the exception. The cases that we normally consider are between these extremes sufficiently likely to give rise to concern to justify an in-depth phase 2 review, but generally not so clearly problematic or irremediable that the advisers and boards of the potential merging parties consider it to be a likely waste of time, money and reputation to take forward.

The analysis of certain mergers in dynamic markets or ecosystems was recently suggested extrajudicially by the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal to be an exercise in crystal ball gazing or guesswork (footnote 1).

But the fact that an analysis is forward-looking does not mean that it is akin to fortune telling. Our role is not to predict market outcomes but to assess how the transaction would be expected to affect the competitive process in a market. We are seeking to understand how far, and in what way, the merger will affect the incentive of the merger parties and third parties to compete and how that may play out in practice. There is never 100 per cent certainty, and the legal test does not require that there should be. The test requires us to consider whether a substantial lessening of competition is more likely than not a more than 50% likelihood. This involves applying judgement to evidence and data. This is as true in established markets as it is in new and developing markets characterized by dynamic competition. In each case one is considering a range of data and evidence and seeking to draw reasonable conclusions from this as to what is likely to happen if the merger was to proceed.

We regularly consider vast amounts of data, internal documents and other submissions. The volume of evidence has increased significantly over the past few years. It is now common to receive millions of documents from merger parties. As the volume of documents and data has increased, we are now also using artificial intelligence systems to help identify more quickly the most relevant material and patterns within material.

We are sometimes warned by merger parties to be sceptical about comments of third parties such as competitors and customers because third parties have their own commercial axes to grind. We are well aware of this, and we exercise appropriate scepticism. Of course, the main parties also (and quite properly) have commercial positions to defend, and we exercise similar scepticism when considering their arguments. This is why more objective and contemporaneous evidence, untainted by the prospect of the merger, can often be helpful, for example data about how markets have operated in the past and their trajectory for the future, in some cases survey data, and in some cases internal documents of the parties and third parties, for example, emails, internal reports, executive committee minutes and the like, particularly where these predate the planned merger.

One of the benefits of having Panel members who have worked at senior roles in large organisations or as leading advisers to businesses is that they understand the strengths and limitations of putting weight on internal documents. The documents have to be understood in context, they may be prone to exaggeration or understatement, and may be motivated by a desire to promote, or discourage, a particular project or development. We get that and we make judgements on the weight to be given such documents accordingly.

We are also sometimes told that such documents are irrelevant because the views of the CEO or other senior executives trump anything in internal documents, especially if given as part of sworn testimony. Again, we give weight to this, but it is not decisive. CEOs obviously play a very important role in setting commercial strategy but are nevertheless one part of a companys decision-making machinery. Opinions can change as organisational and external circumstances develop, and a particular senior executives predictions can be wrong. If there is a difference in the view of how a business or market may develop between what a CEO says and what may be indicated in internal documents or by other senior stakeholders, including sometimes senior executives of other businesses, we have to assess what the totality of the evidence shows. We consider all this in the round.

A good example of this is the Sabre/Farelogix investigation. At the time, we concluded from Sabres internal documents and likely commercial incentives that, absent the merger, it would have continued to develop its merchandising solutions business in competition with Farelogix. Sabre, in its response to our provisional findings, said that this conclusion was entirely fantastical and fundamentally flawed (footnote 2). A few months after we blocked the deal, the Sabre CEO announced that this is exactly what it was going to do, stating that they were working to develop essentially a Farelogix replacement (footnote 3).

Another area in which judgements sometimes have to be made is the weight to put on contracts where parties argue that contractual obligations mean that they would have no ability or incentive to lessen competition post-merger, for example because, in a vertical merger, they would be contractually required to supply customers who might otherwise be foreclosed. As with all evidence, such obligations must be considered in context. This is not just an exercise in contractual interpretation. The terms of contracts will reflect the relative bargaining power of the parties at a particular point in time and contract terms can be amended, waived, or renegotiated. They can be interpreted more or less narrowly. While contracts are an important element of commercial life, contractual disputes are certainly not unknown and, in some cases, the cost of breaching a contract, including reputational costs, could be lower than the commercial gain from the breach. Such decisions by contracting parties will be taken in circumstances that may be very different from those in which the contract was entered into. A merger party who enters into a contract as a lesser evil compared to the alternative of having their merger prohibited or more onerous remedies imposed, may, once the merger is cleared, decide that its commercial interests are best served by renegotiating contract terms or interpreting them in a narrow way that a weaker dependent trading partner may have difficulty in challenging.

To recognise this is not to cast doubt on the sanctity of contract but to acknowledge that, as all who have actually run businesses know, contracts are an important, but not the only, element in defining a commercial relationship. And, significantly for us as a competition authority, where we find that a merger may harm the dynamics of competition in the UK with adverse consequences for UK businesses and consumers, this may be too important to be left to just the commercial decision making of the contractual parties.

The phase 2 process has to achieve a number of objectives. It has to get to the right outcomes to protect competition and consumers in the UK without restricting mergers that will not have a harmful effect. It has to do this using a process that is fair to, and seen to be fair by, all concerned the merger parties certainly but also third parties who may be impacted by the merger. The process must be conducted as efficiently and cost effectively as it can taking into account the other objectives. And the businesses concerned, the CMA and markets more generally have an interest in ensuring that the investigation is concluded as speedily as it sensibly can be.

The parties have repeated opportunities to engage directly with decision-makers. The Group will read all of the written submissions and the parties will meet the Group at least three times in-person (at the site visit, the main party hearing and the remedies hearing) before a decision is taken. This is a considerably higher level of engagement than in most administrative regimes.

However, no system is so good that it cannot be improved, and the recent consultation on possible reforms to the phase 2 process have helped highlight a number of areas for improvement that I, and the other inquiry chairs, have been considering for a while. In particular, the desirability of enhancing the quality of interaction with the decision-making group; improving the level of feedback to the parties as the process develops; tempering the inquisitorial aspects of the system with more discursive approaches; and adopting a new approach to the discussion of remedies.

I will outline our thinking on this shortly and Colin will go into more detail in his presentation later this afternoon but I would first emphasise that, while it is important that the process is fair and efficient, the outcome of a phase 2 investigation may depend also on the strategy that businesses and their advisers decide to pursue. Our process allows for different ways to engage with the CMA from the outset. Brad Smith, the President of Microsoft, very fairly made this point in his recent comments on the Microsoft-Activision transaction when he said: I think we at Microsoft, quite rightly, should accept a level of accountability ourselves. We do, I do, for the fact that we didnt figure out earlier how to unlock this problem and solve it I accept the CMA criticism of Microsoft that we should have figured this out sooner. I wish we had. I think that is our responsibility (footnote 4).

I want to highlight four changes that I think will be especially positive from the Panels perspective.

First, we currently have a site visit early in the process. This is valuable in giving the Group members an opportunity to hear about the transaction and is an important early opportunity for the business people and the decision-makers to meet each other. We are proposing to add an additional opportunity at the beginning of the inquiry for the parties to present their views on the phase 1 decision to the Group in person. I believe this will be helpful to start focusing everyones attention on the key issues at an early stage and I hope will give the parties confidence that the Group is engaged with their arguments from the very start.

Second, we shall publish an Interim Report at an earlier stage of our investigation than the current provisional findings. While this will replace the provisional findings as the primary way in which we set out our provisional decision, it will by its nature be an earlier and less definitive statement of the case. We are conscious that when we publish provisional findings there is sometimes more of a focus on the word findings than the fact that they are provisional. Both in the timing of the Interim Report, and the way in which it is framed, we hope we shall more effectively convey the message that we remain open to evidence based arguments.

Third, we will have a revamped main party hearing at which the merger parties will have the opportunity to present directly to the decision-makers after seeing the full version of the case against the deal set out in the Interim Report if that is the groups provisional view. This will help address the concern that Parties do not have sufficient opportunity to make oral representations on the substance of the case after provisional findings. This hearing will give the group members an opportunity to question the merger parties but will also allow more time for the parties to make submissions and for the adoption of a more discursive approach. In my experience a dialogue between group members and the business people is invaluable in helping the group appreciate the purpose and potential impact of the merger.

Finally, throughout the process, it will be open to merger parties to discuss remedies with the Group at an early stage, if they so wish. This is true under the current process, but the revamped procedure seeks to draw this into the light a bit more and builds in a number of hooks that might serve as a prompt for parties to consider whether their overall commercial objectives might be best served by beginning remedies discussions. Early-stage remedies discussions should also be facilitated by the increased direct engagement with the Group, and hopefully a clearer and earlier understanding by the merger parties of the Groups concerns.

These are positive changes, but their success will depend on how merger parties decide to constructively approach the many choices that have to be made throughout the process, such as whether to request a fast-track case, when to offer remedies, and how to engage with the Group when the opportunities arise.

It is through this combination of fair and efficient processes and effective engagement with merger parties, other businesses and consumers that we are best able to identify competition concerns and prevent or mitigate them where necessary.

[1] The Rise of Ecosystem Theories: Where are we after Microsoft/Activision and Booking/etraveli?, UCL Laws. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkQ7wmC__aE

[2] Anticipated acquisition by Sabre Corporation of Farelogix Inc, CMA, 9 April 2020.

[3] Sabre CEO Sean Menke, Q3 2020 Results, Earnings Call Transcript, 6 November 2020.

[4] The Times, 3 November 2023.

Excerpt from:

Martin Coleman: UK merger control in the post-Brexit era - GOV.UK

Brexit has wiped Britain off the map – The New European

Posted on by

After touring the European Parliaments museum in Brussels, I lingered in the gift shop and saw the tea towels, decorated with a map of the European Union. There was something odd about it. You know that bit of the North Sea just north of France and east of Ireland? The last time I looked at a map, the United Kingdom sat there. On this map, theres only sea.

I was staying in Brussels with my son, Peter, and his Spanish wife, Raquel. Most of Peters British contemporaries went home soon after Brexit, as opportunities in Brussels diminished. Brits in Brussels tend to be a generation older than him (hes in his late 30s), and almost none are younger.

I think Ive dealt with one British colleague since Brexit, a Hungarian EU staffer tells me, and the only Brits Peter knows were there before Brexit.

His friendship group is very international. Among the first 10 people I met at a Halloween party, given by a Belgian and her Hungarian fiancee, I counted nine different nationalities. The predominant language was English, but I heard snatches of French, Spanish, and Dutch. Peter and I were the only Brits, and he is the only Brit at most social gatherings.

Raquel and many of their friends work for the European Commission, a career path blocked for Peter unless he acquires citizenship of an EU country. But Peter put down roots in the city before Brexit, learned French and Spanish, and acquired affection for, and understanding of, the European institutions.

Are we missed? A bit. One Maltese employee at the commission remembers with nostalgia the press review when the journalists mocked the spokespeople a very British thing.

But mostly they dont think about us much, and when they do, theres a sense of bafflement.

We in Lithuania so looked forward to joining, so happy to be allowed to join, yet you threw it away, said one commission staffer. We are Europeans thats made clear in Lithuanian schools but many of us love the UK. I had friends at home who cried when they heard about the Brexit vote.

Her Spanish colleague chimed in: For us, free movement was important, because we didnt have it in the 1950s and 60s. It was seen as a huge opportunity. She still struggles to understand why Britain has grown to hate it. Theres a sense of failure, of betrayal.

Youve left us alone with these lunatics, said a Swede, only half joking, for Sweden used to rely on British support to resist further integration.

But at least, surely, English remains the language in which the European institutions work?

Well, in a sense. The language in which the commission does its business, in which meetings are held and all official documents are written, looks every year less and less like the language you and I speak.

The British staffers used to protect it, to point out gently that this or that construction might sound fine in French or Spanish but it wouldnt do in the language of Shakespeare. But they are no longer there, and of the two remaining Anglophone nations, Ireland has chosen to nominate Gaelic as its official language, and Malta has nominated Maltese.

So a new language is developing, which may eventually be related to English only in the way that Yiddish is related to German, or Niois to Italian. It is developing just as a new language always develops, by using English words in French, Spanish or Italian constructions, and by importing words from European languages. Id be tempted to call it Eurish.

In Eurish, you do not attend a meeting; you assist a meeting, because the French word assister means attend. You dont plan a project, you have a planification. A deposit is a caution (because it is in French.) Spanish has contributed a planning for a schedule, formation for education, and actually for currently.

More are added each year.

Replacing English as the commissions working language would be difficult. But the French are taking the commission to court over certain examinations for commission posts being in English only; and increasingly its Eurish anyway.

The waters of the North Sea really are closing over the British. I should have bought that tea towel while I had the chance.

Continued here:

Brexit has wiped Britain off the map - The New European

Brexit: The research evidence conference – UK in a Changing Europe

Posted on by

Governance after Brexit is major research programme conducted over the past five years into fundamental issues thrown up by the UKs changing relationship with the European Union. This conference brings together leading academics supported by the programme to discuss their research findings with policymakers and commentators. It will range across the impact of Brexit on migrants and migration, its ramifications in Northern Ireland and its consequences for identities, social attitudes and public opinion. The conference will explore the causes and consequences of a generationally significant episode of recent UK history. You will also have a chance to hear a keynote from Stian Westlake, Executive Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council.

Conference Agenda

9:30 10:15 Keynote Introduction: Dan Wincott Governance after Brexit

Keynote: Stian Westlake Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Chair: Anand Menon UKICE

10:15 11:30 Panel 1: Brexit, migrants and migration The ending of free movement was seen by both major parties as central to Brexit. It has had significant impacts on individuals who used pre-Brexit free movement rights, on the UK labour market, and on broader UK migration policy. This panel explores these impacts and the wider economic consequences.

Chair: Catherine Barnard University of Cambridge; UKICE

Panellists: Charlotte OBrien University of York [download slides] Nando Sigona University of Birmingham [download slides] Kezia Tobin The 3 million Ian Robinson, Vialto

11:30 12:00 Break

12:00 13.15: Panel 2: Brexit and Northern Ireland Brexit challenged Northern Irelands position in the UK, as well as the relationship between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. This panel brings together experts and commentators who have explored the economic and political consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Chair: Jill Rutter UKICE

Panellists:

Michael Gasiorek University of Sussex [download slides] David Phinnemore Queens University Belfast [download slides] David Sterling Former Head of Northern Ireland Civil Service Mary C. Murphy University College Cork

13:15 -14:15 Lunch

14:15 15:30: Panel 3: Street-level Brexit

Brexit focused political attention on the UKs regional inequality. Levelling up appeared as the solution to the problems of the left behind, raising questions such as those around how people feel about where they live, as well as opportunities and promises for change. This panel discusses the changes people expected from Brexit and the impact they think it has had.

Chair: Jill Rutter UKICE

Panellists:

Tamara Hervey City, University of London [download slides] Matthew Wood University of Sheffield Adrian Favell University of Leeds Anoosh Chakelian New Statesman

15:30 16:00 break

16:00 17:15 Panel 4: Brexit what did people want? How has the public responded to the choices, dilemmas and trade-offs posed by actually delivering Brexit? Has the process changed political affiliations, loyalties and identities in Britain? What about peoples hopes and expectations about how democratic politics should now work? This panel examines how public attitudes have changed since Brexit.

Chair: Anand Menon UKICE

Panellists: Sara Hobolt London School of Economics [download slides] Meg Russell University College London [download slides] John Curtice University of Strathclyde; National Centre for Social Research; UKICE Sophie Stowers, UKICE

Continued here:

Brexit: The research evidence conference - UK in a Changing Europe

UCT’s Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine … – University of Cape Town News

Posted on by

Dear members of UCTs research community

The University of Cape Towns (UCT) research portfolio increasingly delivers cutting edge research, working across disciplinary boundaries to both create first-in-world new knowledge relevant to our context and to deliver societal impact, as well as improving the quality of life of our people in Cape Town, South Africa and Africa.

By its nature, this type of research crosses faculties, disciplines and applications as is evidenced across a variety of UCTs flagship institutes, centres and units such as the African Centre for Cities(ACC), African Climate Development Initiative(ACDI), SALabour Development Unit(SALDRU), Humanities for Africa(HUMA), Future Water, the Neurosciences Institute(NI) and the Cape Heart Institute(CHI), to name a few. Many of these have soft-funded researchers at their centre.

An outstanding example is UCTs Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine(IDM), launched in 2005 by ProfessorWieland Gevers as a new collaborative model for research. TheIDM now accounts for some one third ofUCTs research income and an impressive component of UCTs research output.

It is the critical mass of the IDM and its component units and centres, alongside exceptional scientists drawn from across the Health Sciences, Science, and Engineering & the Built Environment faculties that drives these contributions. For example, in a research highlight, IDM fellow DrMunyaradzi Musvosvi and full member Professor Tom Scriba from the South African TB Vaccine Initiative (SATVI) published a landmark study in Nature Medicine with colleagues from Stanford University in which they used cutting edge-technology to identify new targets for novel TB vaccine candidates. Illustrating the IDMs focus on translational research, the Genital Inflammation Test(GIFT) developed by IDM members, ProfessorJo-Ann Passmore and DrLindi Masson, together with their dynamic team, reached a major milestone by entering into field testing to evaluate its potential as a low-cost rapid test to detect vaginal inflammation, a major driver of HIV risk in young women.

Since its launch in the IDM a year ago, the Africa Microscopy Initiative(AMI) has acted on its mandate for broader imaging training. AMIhosted the second Imaging Africa workshop in October2022, providing advanced and hands-on imaging training to 24early-career scientists from across Africa in the AMI Imaging Centre. Inpartnership with Global BioImaging, South Africa BioImaging, and the African BioImaging Consortium, AMI then hosted a cohort of 30international participants and faculty at the IDM for an Imaging Facility Management Training workshop in October 2023. As an innovative new model for research capacity strengthening in Africa, AMI was described in a paper published recently in Nature Cell Biology.

As 2023 draws to a close, the leadership of the IDM is set to change. ProfessorValerie MizrahiFRS will be stepping down as director as she retires from UCT. As a university community, it is fitting to pay tribute to the tireless and exceptional leadership she has demonstrated since taking up the role in 2011 and the much-appreciated mentorship she has given to so many researchers.

Filling her shoes is a big task and we are pleased to share with the UCT community that ProfessorDigby Warner will take on this challenge, serving as the IDM director from the start of 2024. ProfessorWarner is well known to the UCT community and has made his mark in many ways, including his world leading research on tuberculosis and mycobacteriology, his skilful negotiations in bringing the Africa Microscopy Initiative to UCT as an iconic approach to shared infrastructure on our continent, and the outreach programme, Eh!woza, which he established with his former PhDstudent, Anastasia Koch.

Research groupings such as the IDM, those mentioned above and the others that make up our 87accredited research groupings are critical to UCTs research portfolio and its reputation. They are key sources of new knowledge of global reach, agents of societal change and underpin the focus of UCT as a university in Africa, for Africa. Iwould like to express appreciation for all UCT researchers who contribute with passion and energy to achieving this.

With kind regards

Professor Sue Harrison Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Internationalisation

Read previous communications:

More here:

UCT's Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine ... - University of Cape Town News