header-logo header-logo

Brexit: Art 50 is triggered

30 March 2017
Issue: 7740 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Complex process of UK’s withdrawal from the European Union has commenced

History was made this week when Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Art 50, commencing the UK’s exit from the EU.

On 29 March a letter signed by May was delivered to EU Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels, informing him that Britain is formally invoking its rights under Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Hugh Mercer QC, of Essex Court Chambers, who chairs the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said: “The giving of notice under Art 50 is the beginning of a process, or perhaps the end of the beginning.

“It sets time running for the two-year period after which the EU treaties no longer apply to the UK. It is to be hoped that an agreement with the EU, in all likelihood a transitional agreement, will be reached within that time limit.

“I would expect there to be informed debate at a political level on the options open to the UK which are less than EU membership.”

Lawyers have called for reciprocal arrangements to allow UK lawyers to practise in the EU, and vice versa, as well as continued recognition of civil and commercial judgments.

The most important element of law is the certainty it brings, says NLJ consultant editor David Greene and senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP. Greene writes in NLJ this week of the enormous complexities that lie ahead, from negotiating a deal for reciprocal rights to navigating the “web of integrating Directives and Regulations and consequent primary and secondary domestic legislation”.

“Dealing with all this in 18 months is an impossible task, particularly if the EU 27 member states don’t play ball and we will need a transition period, perhaps as a European Free Trade Association member,” he says.

“What happens to the profession will largely be in the hands of our clients. Their interests are our interests. Thus, for instance, keeping London’s primary place as the provider of financial services to the world will affect many firms.”

Greene believes lawyers will adapt to their clients’ needs and that the profession will meet the challenge with imagination and enterprise.

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