News Article | February 27, 2017
Exclaimer Limited, the global leader in email signature management solutions, today announced that it has been featured on The Sunday Times Lloyds SME Export Track 100. The 3rd annual Sunday Times Lloyds SME Export Track 100 league table ranks Britain’s small and medium-sized (SME) companies with the fastest-growing international sales. This marks the first time the Farnborough-based organisation has made The Sunday Times SME Export Track 100 coming months after it was awarded the prestigious Queen’s Award for Enterprise in International Trade and received a £23 million investment from mid-market private equity firm Livingbridge. The company is now invited to attend the SME Export Track 100 awards dinner on Tuesday 9th May 2017 in London. Andrew Millington, Chief Executive Officer at Exclaimer, said “We are absolutely delighted to receive this accolade and to be recognised by The Sunday Times in this manner. This would not have been possible were it not for all of the hard work and dedication our highly-skilled team put in every day and it truly celebrates the outstanding sales growth we have achieved over the last 2 years. 2017 promises to be an even bigger year for Exclaimer and our future as a company has never been more exciting.” The league table is sponsored by Lloyds Banking Group, DHL Express and Heathrow Airport, and supported by the government’s Exporting is GREAT campaign. It is compiled by Fast Track, the Oxford-based research and networking events firm. About Exclaimer Founded in 2001, Exclaimer is the recognised global market leader in on-premises and cloud-based email signature software and solutions for Office 365, Microsoft Exchange and Outlook. It has over 50 million users worldwide in 150+ countries with some companies holding licenses for over 100,000 users. Its diverse customer base includes renowned international organisations such as Sony, Mattel, 10 Downing Street, NBC, the Government of Canada, the BBC and many more organisations of all sectors and sizes. Exclaimer solutions are regularly recommended by Microsoft MVPs (Most Valuable Professionals) and have a strong reputation within the Microsoft community. The company has been the recipient of multiple awards within the IT sphere, has been awarded the Queen’s Award for Enterprise in International Trade and has successfully achieved the ISO 27001:2013 Certification for its cloud-based Office 365 signature management service. For more information on Exclaimer, please visit http://www.exclaimer.com.
News Article | February 27, 2017
No tears should be shed for the likely failure of the London Stock Exchange’s £24bn plan to merge with Deutsche Börse. This deal, unveiled almost 12 months ago, cried out for a public interest study even before the UK voted to leave the European Union. Brexit then piled confusion upon uncertainty. If we don’t know what passporting and clearing arrangements will apply in future, how can anybody sensibly assess the long-term consequences of creating a bigger European mash-up of financial infrastructure? The only surprise is that Brexit wasn’t the immediate cause of the deal’s death, though it may have contributed. The critical event was the last-minute intervention of Margrethe Vestager, the European commission competition commissioner. If you want to proceed, Vestager said, the LSE must sell MTS, the Italy-based electronic platform for trading government bonds. Italian regulators hated the idea that their local assets could be carved up to facilitate a predominantly Anglo-German merger, thus the LSE couldn’t possibly comply. That the only credible buyer of MTS would have been Paris-based Euronext added another twist to the game of competing national interests. An attempted land-grab by the French? Italian intransigence? Or was the German financial establishment, which has never been enamoured by the idea that a merged LSE/Deutsche would be housed under a UK holding company, stirring the pot? In the end, it doesn’t matter. Even if the commission could be persuaded (and, technically, it still can be), other obstacles remained. The German state of Hesse could have objected. And the insider trading investigation into a €4.5m (£3.8m) share purchase by Carsten Kengeter, the Deutsche chief executive who had been lined up to lead the merged business (and who denies the allegations), is an unresolved difficulty. What matters now is that the LSE prospers in independent form. A merger with Deutsche would have been messy and awkward. But a takeover from the US, in the form of Intercontinental Exchange, owner of the New York Stock Exchange, would be much worse. The LSE would be relegated to junior partner, a grim prospect if a post-Brexit goal for the UK is to retain the City’s status as the financial capital of Europe. There are reasons to be cheerful. First, the LSE has emerged stronger from its many non-mergers over the last 15 years. Second, the jostling of national egos may have made Downing Street appreciate that ownership matters when it comes to stock exchanges, clearing houses and bond trading platforms. Theresa May is preparing to unveil the government stance on foreign takeovers involving “critical infrastructure”. She should make it crystal clear that bids for the LSE are not welcome, at least until the post-Brexit financial landscape can be mapped. The Association of British Insurers thinks the lord chancellor has made a “crazy” decision. That’s unfair. Liz Truss has merely followed the law in adjusting discount rates – used in calculating losses in personal injury cases – to reflect the plunge in gilt yields since 2001. But, yes, there is something silly about a figure of -0.75% that could cause motor premiums to rise steeply and create an annual £1bn bill for the NHS. The system looks outdated. Common sense suggests even risk-averse individuals wouldn’t invest all their lump sums in gilts, certainly not at prices distorted by quantitative easing. A more sensible approach would start by obliging insurers to underwrite long-term investment risk. Since they do so already in some cases – via a system called periodic payment orders – a compromise ought to be possible that still allows claimants to receive full and fair compensation. Truss will review the current framework to ensure it remains “fit for purpose”, which suggests she knows it isn’t. PriceWaterhouseCoopers was the auditor on the job at Tesco when the supermarket chain confessed to a £263m overstatement of profits. The firm also conducted the “full-scope audit work” at BT’s Italian operations that failed to spot the alleged fraud that ripped a £530m hole in its last set of numbers. Now comes the real shocker: a cock-up at the Oscars involving La La Land. Only one of these disasters, note, shamed PwC into issuing a “sincere apology”. The power of Hollywood is remarkable. Or, rather, auditors tend to get a disgracefully easy ride when calamity strikes at large quoted companies. It is true that PwC lost its audit gig at Tesco (and would be wise to brace for a similar response at BT) but shareholders, unlike Hollywood producers and Oscar viewers, are rarely deemed worthy of a grovelling apology. The normal response is silence – or some empty words from Blah Blah Land.
News Article | February 15, 2017
There is a question that was never put to the leaders of the campaign for Brexit and has not, as far as I’m aware, been put to the prime minister since her conversion to the cause. It is this: what will you do on the morning of formal separation from the EU that you could not have done the day before? What restored freedom, what action hitherto proscribed by the tyrannical bureaucrats of Brussels, will you indulge as the sparkling English wine is uncorked? Bend a banana, perhaps. Or catch the Eurostar to Paris and savour the sensation of no longer having the automatic right to work there. Oh! Pleasant exercise of hope and joy! … Bliss it will be in that dawn to be alive. Right? Brexit enthusiasts will complain that my question is unfair. Objections to EU membership were all about democracy, sovereignty and long-term economic opportunity: not pleasures that can be consumed overnight. And while that might be so, it is also true that people tend to vote for things in expectation of tangible benefits. A weekly dividend of £350m for the NHS, for example. So the unlikelihood of quick gratification for leave voters is a problem. Theresa May identifies a deeper imperative to Brexit than was written on the referendum ballot paper. She hears a collective cry of rage against the economic and political status quo, requiring radical change on multiple fronts. So, in parallel with the prime minister’s plan for a “clean break” from the rest of Europe, Downing Street is thinking of ways to address grievances that generated demand for Brexit in the first place: stagnant wages; anxiety that living standards have peaked and that the next generation is being shafted; the demoralising experience of working all hours without saving a penny. Government thinking on these issues has so far yielded a modest harvest. Last week’s housing white paper was meant to address a chronic shortage of homes by nudging councils towards quicker approval of new developments. Last month saw the launch of an industrial strategy, embracing state activism to nurture growth in under-resourced sectors and neglected regions. Last year May appointed Matthew Taylor, formerly head of Tony Blair’s policy unit, to lead a review into modern employment practices – the decline of the stable, rewarding full-time career and its replacement by poorly paid, insecure casual servitude. A notable feature of this non-Brexit agenda is how closely it tracks arguments made by Ed Miliband in the last parliament. The former Labour leader had a whole thesis about the structural failings of British capitalism and how it corroded people’s confidence in the future, leaving them anxious and angry. His focus on the “squeezed middle” anticipated May’s promise to help those who are “just-about-managing”. Miliband’s calls for state intervention in failing markets were derided by the Tories as socialist delusion at the time, but he opened rhetorical doors through which May is now tentatively stepping. Last week’s housing paper even used a forgotten policy that Labour had launched in 2013 – a “Use it or lose it” threat to developers who hoard land without building on it. Meanwhile, Downing Street has taken a close interest in the commission on economic justice set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a thinktank that provided regular policymaking services for Labour in the days before its capture by Corbynism. The commission was recently invited to give a presentation to May’s leading policy advisers inside No 10. Were it not for Brexit’s domination of political debate, May’s eschewal of conventional left-right dividing lines – her willingness to jettison Thatcherite orthodoxies – might have attracted more notice. But then, as the old Yiddish saying goes, if my granny had balls she’d be my grandpa. The idea that there is some parallel realm of politics that May can develop and for which she will be remembered alongside her EU negotiation is delusional. Timid little steps on housing, industrial strategy and job security are not going to get the prime minister to the promised land of fairness and opportunity in time for Brexit day. And she insists on a diversion to set up more grammar schools along the way, despite nearly every expert in the field warning that educational selection closes more avenues to social mobility than it opens. Even on immigration the government cannot meet expectations raised by the leave campaign. There will still be new people arriving because businesses will insist on a capacity to hire from abroad. Millions who arrived in Britain over recent decades, and their children born as British citizens, will stay because the country is their home. Even the most draconian border regime cannot restore the ethnic homogeneity for which some nostalgic Brexiteers pine. At some point someone is going to have to level with the country. Much of what leave voters were promised is unavailable because the EU was never responsible for a lot of things that made them angry. The dawn of Brexit promises no significant freedom or opportunity that wasn’t there the day before. It isn’t a message that ex-remainers can deliver, for all the reasons that scuppered their campaign last year. It sounded patronising before the referendum and the tone isn’t improved by bitterness in defeat. None of the original leave campaigners will dare admit their dishonesty in making Brussels the scapegoat for every conceivable social and economic ill. There is no point expecting Boris Johnson or Michael Gove to embark on a self-critical journey of public-expectation management. Far more likely they will be drawn deeper into the old lie: someone must be held responsible when Brexit does not unblock the sluices of wealth and opportunity; when the milk and honey refuse to flow. The obvious candidates are foreigners and fifth columnists – EU governments that negotiate in bad faith; alien interlopers who drain public services; unpatriotic “remoaners” talking the country down. The question then is whether the prime minister will go along with that game. She has managed so far to sustain the pretence that dealing with the failure of Britain’s economy to share its bounties fairly and quitting the EU are kind of the same thing. If it turns out that they aren’t, and one ambition obstructs the other, who will she blame?
News Article | February 19, 2017
Earlier this month, British members of Parliament (MPs) overwhelmingly voted to back Brexit, citing deference to the will of the people. But the people’s will can change, noted a former prime minister on Friday – and what happens if it does? Speaking at an event for Open Britain, which wants Britain to maintain access to the single market, Tony Blair declared that the Brexit discussion was far from over. The task for voters who want to remain in the EU, Mr. Blair said, is to persuade Leave voters to change their minds, thus forcing a reversal on Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. “People voted without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so,” he told the audience, reported Bloomberg. Recommended: How much do you know about the EU? Take our quiz. If successful, the campaign could change MPs’ perception of the popular will and potentially reverse Brexit. For now, however, most MPs remain ambivalent, arguing that the fight has been fought and reviving the debate could actually be counterproductive. “He’s hoping he can force … a second referendum,” said Caroline Flint, the Labour MP for Don Valley who was a minister under Blair, the Guardian reported. “That is asking for a two-year campaign to undermine the vote, when I think we need to respect the vote and work hard to get the best deal.” Under increasing pressure from the right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP), then-prime minister David Cameron agreed to a referendum on leaving the EU last year. Following a hard-fought campaign, ‘Leave’ narrowly won out in June, capturing 52 percent of the vote to the ’Remain’ campaign’s 48 percent. Though 75 percent of MPs opposed leaving before the referendum, directives from party leadership and concerns about upholding the democratic process have led most MPs to publicly support Brexit since. “Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken – and many MPs feel that if they are just ignored, there will be a real backlash from people,” Philip Cowley, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an email to the Monitor earlier this month. It’s time to accept that Brexit is happening, those MPs suggest. And for Labour, respecting the referendum has a particular importance: It may help them retain 2 seats in an upcoming by-election. Both Stoke-on-Trent Central and Copeland voted to leave the EU in June. Working with the government now, Remainers argue, may also give them greater leverage when the time comes to negotiate terms of exit from the EU. On top of that, relitigating Brexit could pull focus from other important issues over the next two years. That attitude of acceptance puts many Labour MPs at odds with their former leader. Blair argued Friday that the will of the people was founded on incomplete information, and that history would judge politicians harshly if they pushed it through without trying to change people’s minds. “Our challenge is to expose relentlessly, to show how this decision was based on imperfect knowledge, which will now become informed knowledge,” he said. “I don’t know if we can succeed. But I do know we will suffer a rancorous verdict from future generations if we do not try.” What little data exists about the effects of Brexit remains mixed, and much depends on what the eventual deal with the EU looks like, observers say. That makes it hard to know how much of a difference Blair’s campaign to win hearts and minds could make. Critics have blasted the effort, calling it "condescending" to suggest that Britons did not know their own minds when they went to the polls. “I urge the British people to rise up and turn off the TV next time Tony Blair comes along with his condescending campaign,” pro-Brexit Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told Sky News. UKIP leader Nigel Farage echoed the sentiment on Twitter. Having Blair as the face of the campaign is also risky, some say. Though he is the most successful British politician of the past two decades, Blair is a divisive figure, his image possibly compromised by his support for the Iraq War and his business activities since leaving 10 Downing Street. However successful the campaign proves to be, a second referendum looks unlikely. Polling conducted for The Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London and The UK in a Changing Europe found that just 13 percent of MPs supported asking the people to approve the final deal.
News Article | February 19, 2017
The proposed £115bn takeover of Unilever by Kraft Heinz has been called off, just two days after the offer was announced. The takeover of the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant would have been one of the largest deals in corporate history but was resisted at Unilever and had provoked political unease over British jobs. Unilever rejected the offer by the American firm on Friday, describing the approach as having “no merit, strategic or financial”. Kraft Heinz was expected to return with a higher offer, but late on Sunday the two firms issued a surprise joint statement announcing no deal would go ahead. It said: “Unilever and Kraft Heinz hereby announce that Kraft Heinz has amicably agreed to withdraw its proposal for a combination of the two companies. “Unilever and Kraft Heinz hold each other in high regard. Kraft Heinz has the utmost respect for the culture, strategy and leadership of Unilever.” The US food giant had been preparing to meet top tier shareholders, which include BlackRock, Leverhulme Trust and Legal & General, to convince them to accept the deal. But the strength of resistance to the proposal saw Kraft decide over the weekend to back away. As well as Unilever’s clear reluctance, unions had raised fears over jobs, and discussions had started with the business secretary, Greg Clark, over a move that appeared to have strong echoes of the takeover of Cadbury’s by Kraft in 2010, a deal singled out for criticism by Theresa May last year. A spokesperson for Kraft Heinz said: “[Our] interest was made public at an extremely early stage. Our intention was to proceed on a friendly basis, but it was made clear Unilever did not wish to pursue a transaction. “It is best to step away early so both companies can focus on their own independent plans to generate value. We remain focused on driving long-term value while always putting our consumers first.” Unions had voiced fears over the 9,000 jobs in Britain that could be affected under a takeover of Unilever by Kraft Heinz, where billionaire investor Warren Buffet owns more than a quarter of the shares and which is also backed by 3G, a Brazilian private equity firm. Unite, Britain’s biggest union which directly represents about 2,000 of the 7,500 Unilever staff in the UK, welcomed the news. A Unite spokesman said that while the union was pleased that Kraft Heinz had signalled their withdrawal, the bid illustrated a need to reform takeover rules: “It shows the need for a ‘Cadbury rule’ which takes into account the issues like jobs and consumers in these circumstances, so it’s not just down to how deep someone’s pockets are, to throw money at shareholders.” The Cadbury rule is a reference to the controversial £11.5bn takeover of chocolate maker Cadbury by Kraft in 2010. Pledges to save factories were reneged on almost immediately, before the firm was spun off to form a separate firm, Mondelez, while customers believed the quality of products such as its Creme Egg were downgraded. A source close to the bid earlier insisted there was “no comparison” between the Kraft Heinz company and its management team and the Kraft that took over Cadbury – but admitted that there would be stringent cost-cutting and “synergies” including job losses should Unilever be taken over. Downing Street did not confirm reports that the prime minister had ordered top officials to examine the planned takeover of Unilever to see if it could merit government intervention. A spokesperson for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), had said it was continuing to monitor the situation closely. The bid of £115bn would have made it the second largest takeover in corporate history, beaten only by Vodafone’s $203bn (£163bn) takeover of Mannesmann in 2000. A combined Kraft-Unilever would have been valued at more than £200bn and control 3% of the global packaged food market, according to Euromonitor. The share price in both firms may be expected to slide back on Monday, after surging on news of the offer on Friday. Buffett’s fortune was briefly boosted by another $5.7bn purely on his personal stake in Kraft Heinz, whose shares rose 10%, while Unilever shares rose 13.4% to a record high. The takeover bid was fiercely resisted by the board, led by Paul Polman, the chief executive of Unilever, although he would have stood to earn almost £12m in shares under a sale. The Dutch CEO has made a name as an unusual advocate for sustainable business and global concerns such as poverty and climate change.
News Article | February 22, 2017
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Denver’s newest landmark luxury apartment buildings, the twin 32-story Country Club Towers II and III, developed by Broe Real Estate Group, an affiliate of The Broe Group, has reached its final height of 328 feet. Construction of the buildings, which are located in the West Wash Park neighborhood near the intersection of South Downing Street and East Bayaud Street, started in May of 2015 and the first units will be available to renters in August of this year. “The development of Country Club Towers II and III has been a model for teamwork and creative solutions between the owner, architect and the general contractor. We are proud to have achieved this milestone so quickly and are looking forward to delivering a best-in-class new residential community for Denver,” said Doug Wells, CEO of Broe Real Estate Group. Country Club Towers II and III offers 558 sustainable, luxury, high-rise apartments and 985 structured parking spaces. Each apartment has floor-to-ceiling, energy-efficient windows, granite surfaces, stainless steel appliances and washers/dryers. Amenities include a lap pool with 20,000-square-foot deck, 4,000 square foot fitness center along with yoga and massage rooms, dog spa, bike repair station, two common kitchen areas and related amenity spaces. In addition, several acres of the development have been left in a park-like open space condition to ensure the property retains its existing character. The architect for Country Club Towers II and III is Solomon Cordwell Buenz of Chicago, the Colorado office of Swinerton Builders is the general contractor and the major subcontractors include RK Mechanical, Weifield Group, S.A. Miro, Kimley Horn and StudioInsite. “The logistics of this site has required some creative approaches to the work and moving of people and equipment on and off the property,” said Tim Kretzschmar, Swinerton’s Colorado Division Manager. “After we top out the structures, our focus moves to finishing the interiors as we complete the apartments and amenity areas, as well as install exterior landscaping.” Note to Editors: Tours and photos of the new buildings are available. For more details on the apartments, see http://towers2and3.com. Broe Real Estate Group acquires, develops and manages commercial real estate assets. Affiliated companies own and manage office and industrial properties, medical office buildings and multi-family communities across the country, including premier assets in many of the most desirable markets. For more than 40 years, the company has operated a comprehensive real estate platform to provide complete solutions to maximize return on investment. Additional information is available at www.broerealestate.com. The Broe Group and its affiliates, based in Denver, Colorado, employ more than 1,000 people and manage 29 million square feet of real estate throughout North America. Its transportation affiliate, OmniTRAX, Inc., is a leading transportation services firm with railroad, port and terminal operations throughout North America, including the Great Western Railway Company. Its energy affiliate, Great Western Oil & Gas Company, is a top 100 driller in the U.S. For more information, see www.broe.com. Swinerton Builders was established in California 1888 and has provided general contracting, construction management, and tenant improvement services in Colorado since 1942. Swinerton’s significant experience with multifamily and in-fill construction is a distinguishing characteristic of the firm. A 100 percent employee-owned company, Swinerton has been recognized as a Denver Top Workplace company by WorkplaceDynamics and is devoted to the region with a passion for delivering the highest quality product through innovation, integrity, and experience.
News Article | February 18, 2017
Theresa May is set to meet the chief executive of the PSA Group to discuss Peugeot’s proposals to buy General Motors’ European operation, including Vauxhall. The prime minister has received a request for a meeting with Carlos Tavares to discuss the proposal, which could affect thousands of British workers. The Peugeot boss is also set to hold talks with the leader of Unite, Britain’s biggest union, to discuss the situation. A Downing Street spokesman said: “We can confirm we have received a meeting request. The meeting will take place, in principle, subject to diary availability.” The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, will meet Tavares next week in the latest in a series of talks he has held to help avoid any job losses. He said: “I am pleased that Carlos Tavares has responded speedily and positively to my request for a meeting to discuss Peugeot’s intentions towards our Vauxhall plants. “I will be using this meeting to press the case for the UK’s world class facilities and workforce, and ensuring that Mr Tavares and the PSA Group understand fully that Luton, Toddington and Ellesmere Port, and thousands of dedicated UK workers, deserve a strong backer and a positive future.” Vauxhall’s 35,000-strong UK workforce includes 23,000 in its retail network, 300 at a customer contact centre in Luton and 7,000 in its supply chain alongside the 4,500 employed at factories at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire and Luton in Bedfordshire. PSA said it was engaged in a “constructive dialogue” with all parties involved in the bid for GM’s European division. A spokesman said: “Our intention is to establish the same maturity in our exchanges in France, Germany and the UK. This is why Carlos Tavares has asked to meet Theresa May as was done with German authorities. “In the spirit of co-construction that is driving the PSA Group on a daily basis with its own trade union representatives in France, the same approach is obviously being taken to contact the trade union organisations in Germany and the UK.” The business secretary, Greg Clark, travelled to Paris on Thursday to meet his French counterpart, Christophe Sirugue, and board members of PSA. After the GM talks, Clark said he “emphasised the importance and successful presence of Vauxhall in the UK and welcomed GM’s recognition of the excellent and committed workforce” at Ellesmere Port and Luton. “There is some way to go in discussions between GM and PSA, but I was reassured by GM’s intention, communicated to me, to build on the success of these operations rather than rationalise them,” he said. The tie-up would involve GM leaving Europe, and PSA becoming the second-largest European carmaker with a 16% market share. PSA, which owns the Citroën and Peugeot brands, formed an alliance with GM in 2012 in an attempt to streamline production by combining purchasing power and larger scale. GM said last year it had to raise UK car prices by 2.5% after the plunge in the value of the pound after the EU referendum result caused the British car industry to hit a “speed bump”. Announcing its full-year results last week, the Detroit-based company said GM Europe had narrowed losses to $257m (£206m) in the year to the end of December, from a loss of $813m the year before.
News Article | March 3, 2017
British Prime Minister, Theresa May, leaves 10 Downing Street in London, to attend Prime Minister's Questions at the Houses of Parliament, Wednesday, March 1, 2017. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham) LONDON (AP) — Britain's unelected House of Lords on Wednesday handed the government a stinging — though likely temporary — defeat on its plans to leave the European Union, resolving that EU citizens should be promised the right to stay in the U.K. after it quits the bloc. By a vote of 358 to 256, Parliament's upper chamber inserted a clause protecting EU nationals' status into a bill authorizing the government to begin EU exit talks. The Labour Party's Brexit spokeswoman in the Lords, Dianne Hayter, said Europeans living in Britain "need to know now, not in two years' time or even 12 months' time," what their rights are. "You can't do negotiations with people's futures. They're too precious to be used as bargaining chips," Hayter said. Pro-EU politicians hailed the vote as a symbol of commitment to Europeans living in Britain. But it is unlikely to turn out to be binding on the government. The change must go to a vote in the elected House of Commons, where there is a strong chance it will be rejected, since Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party has a majority in the lower chamber. The government said it was "disappointed" by the Lords' vote, and is expected to try to overturn the amendment in the Commons later this month. By leaving the EU, Britain will be withdrawing from the bloc's policy of free movement, which allows citizens of the bloc's 28 member states to live and work in any of the others. That leaves 3 million EU nationals in the U.K., as well as 1 million Britons in other member countries, uncertain whether they will be able to stay in their jobs and homes once Britain reasserts control over EU immigration. The government has said repeatedly that it plans to guarantee the right of EU citizens to remain in Britain as long as U.K. nationals living elsewhere in the bloc get the same right. Critics accuse the government of treating people as leverage in the divorce negotiations. The Lords' amendment commits the government to guaranteeing within three months that EU citizens living legally in Britain when the bill is passed "continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU-derived rights." A stream of peers — most from opposition parties but a few from the governing Conservatives — stood to agree with her. Broadcaster Melvyn Bragg, a Labour member of the Lords, said EU citizens in Britain had been "reduced to pawns in a government tragedy." He said Britain should "tell those who are here now that we want them to stay here and welcome them." But Conservative peer Nigel Lawson said the amendment was merely "virtue-signaling" and would have no concrete impact. And his Conservative colleague Michael Howard said it could backfire by delaying a deal on residence rights between Britain and the EU. He said the best course was to launch formal negotiations "and then to negotiate to give these people the rights they deserve to stay in this country." The prime minister wants to trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, starting two years of exit negotiations, by March 31. But she can't do that until Parliament passes legislation sanctioning the move. The House of Commons approved the bill last month and can overturn any changes made by the Lords when the legislation comes back. Back-and-forth between the two chambers — a process known as parliamentary ping pong — will delay passage of the legislation and potentially threaten May's timetable for starting EU exit talks. This version has been corrected to show that Prime Minister May's first name is Theresa, not Teresa.
Miguel-Aliaga I.,Downing Street
Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology | Year: 2012
The increasingly recognized role of gastrointestinal signals in the regulation of food intake, insulin production and peripheral nutrient storage has prompted a surge of interest in studying how the gastrointestinal tract senses and responds to nutritional information. Identification of metabolically important intestinal nutrient sensors could provide potential new drug targets for the treatment of diabetes, obesity and gastrointestinal disorders. From a more fundamental perspective, the study of intestinal chemosensation is revealing novel, non-neuronal modes of communication involving differentiated epithelial cells. It is also identifying signalling mechanisms downstream of not only canonical receptors but also nutrient transporters, thereby supporting a chemosensory role for " transceptors" in the intestine. This review describes known and proposed mechanisms of intestinal carbohydrate, protein and lipid sensing, best characterized in mammalian systems. It also highlights the potential of invertebrate model systems such as C. elegans and Drosophila melanogaster by summarizing known examples of molecular evolutionary conservation. Recently developed genetic tools in Drosophila, an emerging model system for the study of physiology and metabolism, allow the temporal, spatial and high-throughput manipulation of putative intestinal sensors. Hence, fruit flies may prove particularly suited to the study of the link between intestinal nutrient sensing and metabolic homeostasis. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.
News Article | February 15, 2017
"All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news," the US tech giant boss told the Daily Telegraph in an interview. "We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader. "Too many of us are just in the complain category right now and haven't figured out what to do." But Cook, who met British Prime Minister Theresa May at Downing Street on Thursday, said governments should also introduce a public information campaign. "We need the modern version of a public-service announcement campaign. It can be done quickly if there is a will," he said. He added: "We are going through this period of time right here where unfortunately some of the people that are winning are the people that spend their time trying to get the most clicks, not tell the most truth. "It's killing people's minds in a way." Fake news—fabricated reports designed to promote a particular agenda—came to prominence during last year's US presidential election campaign. Facebook in particular has come under pressure for failing to take action, and last month modified its system for showing trending topics. The change is designed to ensure that trends reflect real world events being covered by multiple news outlets.