Prophesying Britain's Future in the Balance of Social Policy and the Rescue Culture - Challenges to Post-Brexit Harmonisation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The pending spectre of Brexit and its impact on Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) along with the political uncertainty of a major world power in turmoil following the 2016 United States elections, calls into question the path that many social and economic policies may take in the future. The balance of social policy and economic efficiency is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of employees during bankruptcy/insolvency procedures, which may provide a barometer of changes yet to come. As a member of the European Union (EU), the UK continues to be subject to Regulations and Directives that implement EU social policy objectives and influence the functioning of the rescue culture throughout the Member States. The EU has had a significant influence on the direction the UK has taken in matters of social policy since its accession in 1973. Arguably, this has forced the UK into a socially liberal and protective framework that it might not otherwise have adopted to such a degree had it not been within the EU’s sphere of influence. EU policy also had an influence on the UK’s adoption of the rescue culture, which is now the foundation for insolvency systems throughout the EU and in many modern world economies, though it is possible that the UK may have been a natural development on the legal path of the of the British insolvency system. Now that Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon has been invoked, the UK is making its way toward a deal or no deal Brexit scenario. If and when Brexit becomes a reality, and Britain begins to untangle itself from the influence of the EU, how will the rescue culture and the social protections present within it under the current legal regime be changed? In what direction is the UK likely to go? While difficult to predict, the direction that the UK may take in the event that the European Communities Act of 1972 is eventually repealed and the UK is once again left to its own legislative devices, current conversations in Parliament give a certain flavour of potential futures. In addition, a consideration of different jurisdictions, such as America, Canada and Australia, each having a similar English common law origin and historical links to the UK, can be instructive in relation to which direction the UK may have taken had it never joined the EU. An analysis of this counterfactual position may then also provide a clue as to the direction that the UK may take The UK has ever been the “odd man out” in the EU, springing as it does from a significantly different legal origin than the Franco/German model at the heart of the EU. By examining the developmental path of the United States, Australia and the UK in this area of law prior to EU accession, the behaviour and reactions of the UK during EU membership, and comparing this to similar developments in the comparator countries, it may be possible to forecast the eventual direction that the law of Post-Brexit Britain may take in relation to the social protections that may or may not be available during insolvency procedures in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,023 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».