header-logo header-logo

Bar hits out at Brexit plans

18 July 2018
Issue: 7802 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Legal services
printer mail-detail

White Paper risks endangering access to justice for UK clients, lawyers warn

The ‘disappointing’ Brexit White Paper could lead to a scenario where lawyers on EU soil lose their right to advise on EU law or even on UK law, the Bar Council has warned.

This would leave UK businesses unable to rely on their usual UK lawyers and forced to hire lawyers from the EU instead. Meanwhile, barristers from England and Wales would be unable to defend the UK government, UK businesses or UK citizens in any proceedings before the European Court of Justice.

In its hard-hitting response to last week’s White Paper, the Bar Council further warned that the UK professions would be left in the margins, making it harder for them to maintain or extend their market share. Consequently, the UK risked losing not only the tax revenue but also the influence and ‘soft power’ generated by the legal services sector in Europe and internationally.

The Bar Council stated: ‘Unless the government can explain how a binding EU-wide regulatory framework for legal services could be agreed in an FTA context, the legal professions in the UK would be left to negotiate different bilateral agreements (at a political and/or bar association level) covering the provision of legal services with many of the other 27 (or 30, including EEA) member states.

‘Even if successful, this would provide only a patchwork of rights and obligations, varying from country to country. All this will take many years, if it can be accomplished at all, and in the meantime UK clients will face additional difficulties and cost in ensuring access to justice in their dealings with the EU/EEA.’

Four amendments by pro-Brexit MPs to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill have succeeded in the Commons, watering down the White Paper’s proposals. They include that the UK is prevented from collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU unless there is a reciprocal arrangement, and that it be prevented from joining the EU’s VAT regime.

Aline Doussin, a London-based trade partner in the Hogan Lovells Brexit Taskforce, advised businesses to plan for ‘full implementation of the Union Customs Code, and take full advantage of the available trusted trader schemes for trades with the EU27. In parallel, the impact of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU internal market on services should be carefully reviewed and planned for, for all traders of services, not just financial ones’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll