Podcast appearances and mentions of simon deakin

The LLM Subject Forum is an event held at the beginning of each academic year to help current LLM students decide which courses to take. Course convenors for each course discuss for approximately 10 minutes the goals and objectives of their course, and some general introductory presentations are also delivered. Potential applicants to the LLM listening to this presentation must bear in mind the students who were in the audience were intended as the target audience. Most of the courses offered each year will run in subsequent years, but not necessarily all of them. Please see the LLM website http://www.llm.law.cam.ac.uk/ for more information.

The LLM Subject Forum is an event held at the beginning of each academic year to help current LLM students decide which courses to take. Course convenors for each course discuss for approximately 10 minutes the goals and objectives of their course, and some general introductory presentations are also delivered. Potential applicants to the LLM listening to this presentation must bear in mind the students who were in the audience were intended as the target audience. Most of the courses offered each year will run in subsequent years, but not necessarily all of them. Please see the LLM website http://www.llm.law.cam.ac.uk/ for more information.

Brexit and workers’ rights 1 October 2019 - 18:30 pm - 20:30 pm Keating Chambers, 15 Essex St, Temple, London WC2R 3AA Chaired by Sarah Veale Professor Michael Gold and Professor Simon Deakin talk on ‘What the UK's membership of the EU has entailed for workers’ rights and how the UK might achieve dynamic alignment of these rights after Brexit.’

On 16 November 2018 the SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, held a conference at Peterhouse College in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy. While politicians in Westminster were arguing about the merits of Theresa May, the Prime Minister's draft Withdrawal Agreement simultaneously delegates to the conference gave their verdict on it. They had actually read the 585 pages of what has been termed the “divorce” bill and the accompanying shorter seven page political agreement which paves the way for our future trade deals. Meanwhile some politicians were admittedly having difficulty getting to grips with it.In this special 57 minute audio podcast three of the Conference guest speakers give their views on the Withdrawal Agreement.All three took issue with the views expressed in the mainstream media that the Agreement was a dogs' breakfast. They argue that it is a very well-crafted and thought through legal document and that the EU and UK negotiating teams' have shown considerable skill in drafting it.Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge said that both the EU and UK negotiators need to be congratulated on it. But he expressed concerns about Citizens rights.Deakin key quote: “It is a very soft form of Brexit in which we continue to abide by many standards in terms of labour law and the environment and many people like that. But people who supported Brexit wanted to use it as an opportunity to deregulate these standards, they would be unhappy. People who are concerned about citizens' rights will also be unhappy, because it has some protections for EU citizens here and those UK citizens living in mainland Europe, but it doesn't go far enough in many respects, it doesn't give UK citizens living in mainland Europe the right to live and work outside the EU host state they have been living within. We're under protecting EU Citizens abroad.”Deakin gives a powerful summary of how he thinks the Agreement will play out for the UK in the longer term in terms of the devolved assemblies, and its economic impact.“Brexit here as elsewhere puts enormous pressure on our existing constitutional arrangements and begins to call into question the legitimacy of the way in which Brexit has been conducted because significant voices such as the devolved administrations would argue they have been left out.“It is legally impressive to have produced a text of this nature so quickly. People drafting it on both the EU and British side deserve to be congratulated. We do need law to play a role here. Without the enormous effort to put into legal terms this big political shift we would be facing a much more chaotic and difficult situation. The deal that has been offered by the EU is infinitely preferable to no-deal; no-deal will not just put at risk our economy but many aspects of social provision including things as basic as the free circulation of medicines and the free circulation of some goods and no-deal could easily lead to food shortages and the mothballing of other aspects of our industrial capacity.“But on the down side it doesn't sufficiently protect the rights of UK citizens living on the mainland and our environmental and labour rights because the non-regression clause only applies up to the end of the transition period. It could have provided for a more dynamic forward looking alignment of UK law with those standards. The customs territory has been designed as a function of the need to avoid a hard border in NI and this is understandable but it underplays the degree to which we need a customs union within the EU.”He went on to say that the Agreement was a compromise: “It's the compromise and that

On 16 November 2018 the SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, held a conference at Peterhouse College in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy. While politicians in Westminster were arguing about the merits of Theresa May, the Prime Minister's draft Withdrawal Agreement simultaneously delegates to the conference gave their verdict on it. They had actually read the 585 pages of what has been termed the “divorce” bill and the accompanying shorter seven page political agreement which paves the way for our future trade deals. Meanwhile some politicians were admittedly having difficulty getting to grips with it.In this special 57 minute audio podcast three of the Conference guest speakers give their views on the Withdrawal Agreement.All three took issue with the views expressed in the mainstream media that the Agreement was a dogs' breakfast. They argue that it is a very well-crafted and thought through legal document and that the EU and UK negotiating teams' have shown considerable skill in drafting it.Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge said that both the EU and UK negotiators need to be congratulated on it. But he expressed concerns about Citizens rights.Deakin key quote: “It is a very soft form of Brexit in which we continue to abide by many standards in terms of labour law and the environment and many people like that. But people who supported Brexit wanted to use it as an opportunity to deregulate these standards, they would be unhappy. People who are concerned about citizens' rights will also be unhappy, because it has some protections for EU citizens here and those UK citizens living in mainland Europe, but it doesn't go far enough in many respects, it doesn't give UK citizens living in mainland Europe the right to live and work outside the EU host state they have been living within. We're under protecting EU Citizens abroad.”Deakin gives a powerful summary of how he thinks the Agreement will play out for the UK in the longer term in terms of the devolved assemblies, and its economic impact.“Brexit here as elsewhere puts enormous pressure on our existing constitutional arrangements and begins to call into question the legitimacy of the way in which Brexit has been conducted because significant voices such as the devolved administrations would argue they have been left out.“It is legally impressive to have produced a text of this nature so quickly. People drafting it on both the EU and British side deserve to be congratulated. We do need law to play a role here. Without the enormous effort to put into legal terms this big political shift we would be facing a much more chaotic and difficult situation. The deal that has been offered by the EU is infinitely preferable to no-deal; no-deal will not just put at risk our economy but many aspects of social provision including things as basic as the free circulation of medicines and the free circulation of some goods and no-deal could easily lead to food shortages and the mothballing of other aspects of our industrial capacity.“But on the down side it doesn't sufficiently protect the rights of UK citizens living on the mainland and our environmental and labour rights because the non-regression clause only applies up to the end of the transition period. It could have provided for a more dynamic forward looking alignment of UK law with those standards. The customs territory has been designed as a function of the need to avoid a hard border in NI and this is understandable but it underplays the degree to which we need a customs union within the EU.”He went on to say that the Agreement was a compromise: “It's the compromise and that

Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) why Brexit isn't the cure for Britain's broken economic model. On 16 November 2018 the SRI and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, are holding a conference in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy.This is the third of a series of podcasts which the Public Policy SRI has commissioned with key speakers involved in the Cambridge event.In this audio podcast Professor Deakin explains that Britain's low-wage, low productivity economy is the result of forty years of neoliberal economic policies. While some on the Left think that Brexit will allow a reset of British economic policy, Deakin explains why this view is implausible. Even a benign or ‘soft' Brexit will cause a shock to Britain's trading relations that will have long-lasting consequences. If there is a hard, no-deal Brexit, the effect will be akin to ‘shock therapy' of the kind inflicted by neoliberal policy makers on the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) why Brexit isn't the cure for Britain's broken economic model. On 16 November 2018 the SRI and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, are holding a conference in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy.This is the third of a series of podcasts which the Public Policy SRI has commissioned with key speakers involved in the Cambridge event.In this audio podcast Professor Deakin explains that Britain's low-wage, low productivity economy is the result of forty years of neoliberal economic policies. While some on the Left think that Brexit will allow a reset of British economic policy, Deakin explains why this view is implausible. Even a benign or ‘soft' Brexit will cause a shock to Britain's trading relations that will have long-lasting consequences. If there is a hard, no-deal Brexit, the effect will be akin to ‘shock therapy' of the kind inflicted by neoliberal policy makers on the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) why Brexit isn’t the cure for Britain’s broken economic model.

Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) why Brexit isn’t the cure for Britain’s broken economic model.

Sue Konzelmann, Birbeck College, University of London, Marc Fovargue-Davies, Birbeck College, University of London XIII SOAS IDP Lecture - Industrial Development and Policy Cluster, Department of Economics Labour, Finance and Inequality is a study of the interaction between politics, economics, social dynamics and the legal framework - and the process of change in the conventional wisdom and the policies informed by it. these are examined against the backdrop of British history from the early twentieth century to the present, to access why change happens, why it doesn't always happen when it might be expected to and relative power of key segments of society on this process. We will also take into account shifts in the relative power of the state and international business and finance, and how this has affected both the policy options available to national governments and their relative effectiveness. Book reference: Sue Konzelmann, Marc Fovargue-Davies, Frank Wilkinson and Simon Deakin (forthcoming) Labour, Finance and Inequality: The Changing Nature of Economic Policy in Britain. Routledge Speaker(s): Sue Konzelmann (Birbeck College, University of London) Marc Fovargue-Davies (Birbeck College, University of London), Antonio Andreoni,(SOAS University of London) Event Date: 07 June 2017 Released by: SOAS Economics Podcast

Discussions des conclusions du rapport du Panel International pour le Progrès Social sur l'articulation entre finance, marchés et entreprises et leur régulation. Plusieurs centaines de chercheurs ont contribué au Panel International pour le Progrès Social. Les conclusions du chapitre 6 du rapport, portant sur l'articulation entre finance, marchés et entreprises sont présentées par les responsables du Panel et mises en discussion avec Olivier Favereau, qui anime depuis 2009 le programme de recherche sur l'entreprise mené au Collège des Bernardins, et Christian Chavagneux, qui a travaillé en particulier sur les multinationales et l'optimisation fiscale. Simon DEAKIN, Professeur de droit, Directeur du programme Cambridge Center for Business Research, coordinateur du Chapitre 6 du Rapport IPSP Olivier FAVEREAU, Co-directeur du département Economie, Homme, Société Marc FLEURBAEY, Docteur en économie Professeur à l'université de Princeton Membre du Comité de Pilotage de l'IPSP Christian CHAVAGNEUX, Journaliste, Alternatives Économiques, AlterEco Plus, BFM Business

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law. He specializes in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences, and he contributes regularly to the fields of law and economics, law and development, and empirical legal studies. He is Director of the Centre for Business Research (http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/), co-Chair of the Public Policy SRI and a Fellow of Peterhouse. His books include Tort Law (7th. ed. with Basil Markesinis and Angus Johnston, 2012), Labour Law (6th. ed. 2012, with Gillian S. Morris), The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Legal Evolution (2005, with Frank Wilkinson), and Hedge Fund Activism in Japan: The Limits of Shareholder Primacy (2012, with John Buchanan and Dominic Chai). He is editor in chief of the Industrial Law Journal and a member of the editorial board of the Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law. He specializes in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences, and he contributes regularly to the fields of law and economics, law and development, and empirical legal studies. He is Director of the Centre for Business Research (http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/), co-Chair of the Public Policy SRI and a Fellow of Peterhouse. His books include Tort Law (7th. ed. with Basil Markesinis and Angus Johnston, 2012), Labour Law (6th. ed. 2012, with Gillian S. Morris), The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Legal Evolution (2005, with Frank Wilkinson), and Hedge Fund Activism in Japan: The Limits of Shareholder Primacy (2012, with John Buchanan and Dominic Chai). He is editor in chief of the Industrial Law Journal and a member of the editorial board of the Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law. He specializes in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences, and he contributes regularly to the fields of law and economics, law and development, and empirical legal studies. He is Director of the Centre for Business Research (http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/), co-Chair of the Public Policy SRI and a Fellow of Peterhouse. His books include Tort Law (7th. ed. with Basil Markesinis and Angus Johnston, 2012), Labour Law (6th. ed. 2012, with Gillian S. Morris), The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Legal Evolution (2005, with Frank Wilkinson), and Hedge Fund Activism in Japan: The Limits of Shareholder Primacy (2012, with John Buchanan and Dominic Chai). He is editor in chief of the Industrial Law Journal and a member of the editorial board of the Cambridge Journal of Economics.

On 30 June the Faculty hosted a workshop in partnership with Slaughter and May. The event was an opportunity for the Faculty of Law to share with Slaughter and May some examples of recent research. Three short presentations were made: - Ms Elizabeth Howell: 'The Politicisation of Regulation: A 'Short' Story'; - Professor Simon Deakin: 'The Role of Law in Economic Development in China and Russia'; - Dr Mark Elliott: 'Human Rights in the UK: Where Now?';

On 30 June the Faculty hosted a workshop in partnership with Slaughter and May. The event was an opportunity for the Faculty of Law to share with Slaughter and May some examples of recent research. Three short presentations were made: - Ms Elizabeth Howell: 'The Politicisation of Regulation: A 'Short' Story'; - Professor Simon Deakin: 'The Role of Law in Economic Development in China and Russia'; - Dr Mark Elliott: 'Human Rights in the UK: Where Now?';

On 30 June the Faculty hosted a workshop in partnership with Slaughter and May. The event was an opportunity for the Faculty of Law to share with Slaughter and May some examples of recent research. Three short presentations were made: - Ms Elizabeth Howell: 'The Politicisation of Regulation: A 'Short' Story'; - Professor Simon Deakin: 'The Role of Law in Economic Development in China and Russia'; - Dr Mark Elliott: 'Human Rights in the UK: Where Now?';

On 30 June the Faculty hosted a workshop in partnership with Slaughter and May. The event was an opportunity for the Faculty of Law to share with Slaughter and May some examples of recent research. Three short presentations were made: - Ms Elizabeth Howell: 'The Politicisation of Regulation: A 'Short' Story'; - Professor Simon Deakin: 'The Role of Law in Economic Development in China and Russia'; - Dr Mark Elliott: 'Human Rights in the UK: Where Now?';