‘Proposed legislation bringing existing EU law into UK law is “fundamentally flawed” and needs to be reworked, a Lords committee has said.’
BBC News, 29th January 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In December 2017, the principles of Britain’s divorce from the European Union were agreed, and we now move to what Theresa May has called the “implementation phase”. But, as Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University tells Bonnie Soames, it should really be termed “the transition”.’
Law Pod UK, 17th January 2018
Source: audioboom.com
‘A battle cry of the Brexiteers during the referendum campaign was a rousing appeal to restore the supremacy of Parliament: to free our great nation from its subservience to EU law. There is therefore a dispiriting irony that the process of withdrawal that is proposed in the EU Withdrawal Bill will lead to a hollowing out of the authority of Parliament[1]. On an unprecedented scale, it is proposed that Parliament will divest itself of powers in its traditional sphere of authority – that of legislating pursuant to the mandate granted by the electorate – and transfer such powers to the Executive. At the same time, there will be a sapping of Parliamentary power to the Judiciary, who will be required to adjudicate on issues of policy that would be expected to have been determined by the sovereign Parliament, unless some clear interpretative guidance is provided in the approach to be adopted to policy issues that will inevitably arise.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The British government may have breached a major “environmental democracy” law by failing to consult the public when drawing up Brexit legislation.’
The Guardian, 9th January 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Recent press reports have suggested that competition lawyers in other Member States have been confidently predicting the death of cartel claims in the UK following Brexit. But reports of the demise of this species of litigation are premature. The European Communities Act 1972 (the ECA 1972) will be repealed following the entry into force of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill). But this is unlikely to have any significant impact on the ability of claimants to bring claims before UK courts for damages caused by infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – at least for quite some time. The reason for this is the provisions of the Bill that protect rights that have accrued prior to “exit day”.’
Blackstone Chambers, 4th December 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The lack of adequate Parliamentary scrutiny when the UK negotiates trade agreements (something it has not done in its own right for many years) has come to the attention of the House of Commons International Trade Committee. This is timely given the prospect of the UK negotiating the single most important trade agreement it is likely to negotiate for a long time – its future trade agreement with the EU. The context for the Committee’s concern is its inquiry into the Trade Bill. One of the issues which the Bill addresses is the domestic implementation in the UK of those EU trade agreements which are adapted for continued application by the UK after Brexit. The Committee has asked whether Parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial rules implementing these agreements is adequate, and, more broadly, whether scrutiny of the UK signing up to these and other trade agreements, is adequate.’
Brexit Law, 6th December 2017
Source: brexit.law
‘Speech by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court: The Future for the UK’s jurisdiction and English law after Brexit.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 30th November 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has warned UK financial firms that they should not rely on leniency from local regulators in the EU if the UK exits the trading bloc without a deal on the cross-border provision of financial services provision in place.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Earlier in the year, I posted on the importance of Parliament legislating to provide a new ‘constitutional instruction’ to national courts to replace that currently set out in the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) and offer clear guidance on judicial interpretation post-Brexit (see here). The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill provides domestic courts with that instruction as part of its effort to prepare the UK legal order for the challenges of leaving the European Union. This second post reviews the terms of that instruction and reflects on the scope that it would afford national courts to shape the development of domestic law post-Brexit.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th November 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Faced with a cliff, jumping is generally considered one of the least pleasant solutions. Yet we are racing towards the edge of the Brexit cliff. Miracles excluded, the UK and EU will not be able to finalize the necessary Brexit agreements in time. Effectively, there is less than a year left, and we have not even moved beyond the Brexit bill. As an extension of the two-year term seems politically impossible in the UK, we seem left with one unlikely and one disastrous possible outcome.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th November 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Ministers are considering how to amend UK law to recognise animal sentience after Brexit, Michael Gove says.’
BBC News, 23rd November 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The legal press has mostly viewed Benkharbouche v SOS for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2017] UKSC 62 in the Supreme Court [“SC”] as a case which simply addresses the interplay between State Immunity and the Employment Tribunals. But, the other significance to this case is that it contains commentary the on the supremacy of EU Law, the role and significance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (“CFREU”) and the way in which it confers a free standing route to dis-applying primary legislation as well as raising questions on the impact of Brexit. It follows that it is essential reading for employment lawyers. Jacques Algazy QC analyses these issues in this blog.’
Cloisters, 2nd November 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The legal implications of leaving the EU have not been thought through, could overwhelm the supreme court and endanger the independence of the British judiciary, four senior retired judges have warned.’
The Guardian, 21st November 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Family analysis: Analysing a case where the Family Court submitted a ‘highly unusual’ request under Article 15 of Brussels II bis to the Spanish court for it to transfer jurisdiction to the courts of England and Wales, Chris Stevenson, barrister at Fourteen, questions how such cases will be approached in a post-Brexit world.’
Family Law, 17th November 2017
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Since joining the EU, the free movement of people throughout Europe has led to an increase in international families in the UK, with more marriages involving people of different nationalities and from different cultures than ever before. The large number of international families in the UK could mean social, economic and legal complexities post-Brexit, with studies already showing that Brexit is causing friction within families.’
Family Law, 1st November 2017
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The UK government has reiterated its plans to establish an agreement with the remainder of the EU member states that will allow personal data to flow across borders unhindered post-Brexit.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th October 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Last week, Lord Sumption delivered the majority decision of the Supreme Court on Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah. The case would have been heard in December of last year, but for the small matter of Miller, which caused the hearing to be moved to June of this year. Brexit and Miller, however, do not only seem to have affected the timing of the hearing. They have also affected its importance. What might have been originally anticipated as a potentially defining moment – where the Supreme Court confirmed that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could be used as a stand-alone cause of action to disapply primary legislation and explained how this could be achieved – was translated into an almost blasé statement by the court that ‘a conflict between EU law and English domestic law must be resolved in favour of the former, with the latter being disapplied; whereas the remedy in the case of inconsistency with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is a declaration of incompatibility.’ What might once have seemed controversial has become run of the mill. What has led to the casual acceptance of ‘disapplication’ of a UK statute; and what will happen to disapplication – and the Charter – post-Brexit?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Will the UK need to keep an eye on ECJ rulings after withdrawal? Rhodri Thompson QC examines the practical and political difficulties.’
Counsel, October 2017
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘Human rights took centre-stage – alongside a healthy dose of politics – at a discussion between Shadow Minister for Brexit Sir Keir Starmer and the BBC’s Jo Coburn this week.’
RightsInfo, 19th October 2017
Source: rightsinfo.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024