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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll