This chapter discusses the entanglement of Brexit with the subsequent pandemic and the war in Ukraine, both of which have been used to muddy Brexit’s economic impact. It first analyses the rhetoric of the Leave campaign and of those politicians advocating for and negotiating Brexit. Those negotiations are bound to continue while politicians are reluctant to acknowledge Brexit as unfinished business. It then contextualizes contemporary fears of unlimited immigration as an echo of postimperial anxieties about British identity. These also feature in literary responses to Brexit which make them condition-of-England novels rather than investigations of wider Anglo-European relations. Forging a dialogue between the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fallout from the fourteenth-century bubonic plague suggests that political leadership and economic steer are crucial in determining a country’s recovery. How the pandemic was handled in the UK, paired with the economic impact of Brexit, aggravated the global supply issues caused by the war in Ukraine. This was not an inevitable outcome.

The chapter focuses on the influence of French cuisine in Britain. The innovations of French courtly cuisine were frequently mocked in Britain which had its own tradition of sound and economical country house cooking. The Industrial Revolution brought a loss of cooking skills among the urban poor. The affluent benefitted from the flight of French chefs after the French Revolution, leading to the culinary pretensions of the (equally mocked) Regency period. French chefs set up French restaurants and cooking schools, popularising French cuisine, thus influencing the tastes of the middle classes and stimulating a range of gastronomical writings. Examples from Antony Trollope’s Vanity Fair, Virgina Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent, Mike Leigh’s Life is Sweet, Peter Greenaway’s The Cook, the Thief, the Wife and Her Lover and Elizabeth David’s postwar books serve to gauge the extent of French infuence and help define what makes British food, British.

The Introduction discusses the British usage of the term ’Europe’ and its historically contingent connotations before it outlines the complex historical relationship between the two entities, both of whom were in perennial flux. Global wars, imperialist ambitions, religious affiliations, revolutions political and industrial, travel and technology all played a part in shaping its permutations. The volume’s multi-pronged approach to the topic comprises four parts, covering geographical zones of influence, pan-European movements, cultural transfers, and uncertainties and anxieties. The editors also point to alternative critical approaches to ’Europe’ including philosophical discussions about the idea of Europe and literary essays on the topic.

The goal of this chapter is to provide a concise summary of the most common emergencies in neuro-ophthalmology. The chapter’s focus is three main neuro-ophthalmic emergency topics: diplopia, pupil abnormalities, and acute loss of vision. The chapter concludes with other important topics that are not neurological in nature, but are important to diagnose immediately such as a retinal detachment or ruptured globe.

The notion of a “separable” arbitration agreement--- presuming that the validity and ambit of an arbitration clause are to be judged independently from that of the overall contract between the parties---is the cornerstone of the arbitration law of virtually every state. Such a rule functions to protect the agreement to arbitrate from assertions (often raised in bad faith and for purposes of delay) that the overall agreement is subject to some infirmity that necessarily “taints” the submission to arbitration as well; the impact of the rule is that such assertions fall to be decided, not by courts, but by the arbitral tribunal itself.Despite frequent objections that this allocation of authority is not “logical”---that every part of a contract must stand or fall together---the rule of “separability” is best understood as a sensible default rule respecting the probable expectation of contracting parties (who were unlikely to have contemplated that a claim, say, of fraud, and a claim going to the merits of a cause of action, would fall to be adjudicated by different decisionmakers). Application of “separability” grounded in challenges based on fraud is in fact entirely intuitive; other sorts of challenges (perhaps suggesting a failure of any consensus whatever between the parties) may be more difficult.Still, the fil conducteur is clear enough, and jurisprudence across national lines remarkably consistent.