Brexit

Interview: Christopher Vajda

As the Prime Minister’s Brexit dealings are awaited, Anthony Inglese meets UK judge to Europe’s top court, Christopher Vajda, who reflects on his journey to the ECJ and six years of judging EU-style

read more

Electoral law: unfit for the 21st century?

With democracy at risk there’s no excuse for legislative inaction, argue Alison Foster QC, Tom Tabori and Gethin Thomas who make the case for reform and put forward proposals for change

read more

Dare I mention B***it?

With the urgency to settle the UK’s negotiating position increasing and crunch time approaching, Andrew Walker QC reads the (legal) runes—what will Brexit mean for the Bar?

read more

Spring 2018: a Brussels Brexit stock-take

Is the rocky road to Brexit obscured by London fog? Taking stock from Brussels, Evanna Fruithof joins calls for fewer speeches and more legal texts

read more

EU Withdrawal Bill and judicial review: are we ready?

Angus McCullough QC considers the role of judicial review as the EU Withdrawal Bill is enacted, and after Brexit day has dawned

A flash-back to 1980: the first series of the TV sitcom, Yes Minister and a discussion between a Permanent Secretary (Sir Humphrey Appleby) and his Minister (the Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP):

read more

ECJ status post-Brexit

Will the UK need to keep an eye on ECJ rulings after withdrawal? Rhodri Thompson QC examines the practical and political difficulties

read more

Westminster Watch

Mark Hatcher examines the issues ahead, as Theresa et al teeter towards Brexit on the Westminster tightrope without the critical parliamentary safety net

read more

Government’s post-Brexit blueprint raises more questions than answers

The government sketched out plans for the UK’s future relationship with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in one of its post-Brexit ‘position papers’.

In Enforcement and dispute resolution: a future partnership paper, the government said: ‘In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

‘The UK and the EU need therefore to agree on how both the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, and our new deep and special partnership, can be monitored and implemented to the satisfaction of both sides, and how any disputes which arise can be resolved.’

The paper said the UK wants to: maximise certainty for individuals and businesses; ensure that they can effectively enforce their rights in a timely way; respect the autonomy of EU law and UK legal systems while taking control of our own laws; and continue to respect our international obligations.

It said that the UK will ‘take steps to implement and enforce our agreements with the EU within our domestic legal context’, including providing ‘the appropriate means’ by which individuals and businesses can rely on and enforce rights contained in any agreements, underpinned by the creation of international law obligations which will flow from our agreements with the EU.

Among the options, it seemed to envisage an arrangement similar to the court used by the countries in the European Free Trade Association.

Responding to the paper, the Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC, said: ‘The paper raises more questions than it seeks to answer on what is a matter of crucial significance to the UK.’

Langdon said: ‘A number of suggested alternatemechanisms to the CJEU are listed,though it is not clearwhich, if any, thegovernment favours.’

He stressed: ‘Whatever agreement the UK reaches with the EU, there must be some form of dispute resolution process with the EU post-Brexit in which all parties haveconfidence.

‘There are important regulatory, economic and rights-based reasons for ensuring legal certainty which underline the ongoing relevance of the CJEU case law post March 2019.’

He also warned that the EU Withdrawal Bill was a ‘recipe for confusion’ that will leave UK citizens and businesses with less protection against the power of the state.

 

read more

Brexit ‘no threat’ to London

Brexit will not affect the quality or certainty of English law or the standing of London’s courts, the Lord Chief Justice insisted.

At the judge’s dinner at Mansion House Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said rumours that English law is no longer certain and that London is no longer a safe forum to bring disputes are ‘fuelled by our competitors for their own advantage’ and are ‘unequivocally’ wrong.

Rumour he said, must be countered ‘if we are to ensure that the lie repeated does not’ be taken as truth. English contract and commercial law, he said, is unaffected by Brexit as they has never been within the scope of EU law.

‘London will continue to be a leading arbitration centre. Our legal profession will continue to be expert and world-respected. Our judges will continue to be drawn from the highest ranks of that legal profession. They will continue to be renowned for their expertise, impartiality and integrity,’ he said.

At the same event the Lord Chancellor, David Lidington, pledged to push the UK’s legal services as the country heads towards its departure from the EU.

He said Brexit will show Britain’s judges are the best in the world. ‘The message will be choose the UK and you will get a global guarantee of judicial excellence and integrity.’

Earlier the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, saidBrexit could boostLondon’sstatus as the world’s legal centre. Once British judges are ‘left to our own common law devices’, he said, the courts will be able to ‘react more quickly and freely to developments in our fast-changing world’.

read more

Citizens of nowhere?

Colin Yeo examines the status of EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU after Brexit

On 26 June 2017, over a year after the Brexit referendum result, the government finally published its proposals to ‘safeguard the position of EU citizens living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU’. 

read more