The Beginning of the End of the Road? Britain and the European Council Meeting, 8-9 December 2011

What will the outcome of last week’s EU summit mean for the future of the UK’s position within the Union? According to Dr. Simon Green, Professor of Politics at Aston University, UK, it could spell disaster for Britain in the single market of the EU. In his essay entitled The Beginning of the End of the Road? Britain and the European Council meeting, 8/9 December 2011, originally published in Aston University’s Aston Centre for Europe blog, Dr. Green explains that Prime Minster David Cameron’s decision to exclude the UK from the EU’s new intergovernmental pact will alienate the UK from the Union more than ever before.

"Trade creep" and implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement for the United Kingdom National Health Service

The ambitious and comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP/TAFTA) agreement between the European Union and United States is now being negotiated and may have far-reaching consequences for health services. The agreement extends to government procurement, investment, and further regulatory cooperation. In this article, we focus on the United Kingdom National Health Service and how these negotiations can limit policy space to change policies and to regulate in relation to health services, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and health industries. The negotiation of TTIP/TAFTA has the potential to "harmonize" more corporate-friendly regulation, resulting in higher costs and loss of policy space, an example of "trade creep" that potentially compromises health equity, public health, and safety concerns across the Atlantic.

A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

OBJECTIVES: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. RESULTS: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.

Contesting human rights through institutional reform:a case study of the reform of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission

This article presents a case study of the recent reform of the United Kingdom Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to address a critical gap in the literature on national human rights institutions (NHRIs) concerning the power of governments to exert control over these institutions through reform processes. Through this analysis, the article demonstrates, first, that NHRIs are affected by contextual factors not only related to the popularity of the human rights agenda but also to wider policy agendas which impact on their status and functions; and second, that attempts by government to exert more administrative control can be significantly problematic for the operational independence of NHRIs.