header-logo header-logo

08 September 2017 / David Greene
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit
printer mail-detail

A Brexit reality check

nlj_7760_greene

Civil servants are seeking to wrestle political hubris & legal reality, says David Greene

As the commons debates the Withdrawal Bill, the government has published two new papers on civil justice proposals with the EU after Brexit which grabbed the holiday headlines as a ‘climbdown’ on the issue of the post-Brexit role of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). To suggest a climbdown might be adding a little journalistic esprit to the possibilities canvassed in the papers. More generously we might think of them being the product of the confluence of political hubris and legal reality.

The UK red line through the CJEU is well rehearsed. The white paper put it simply: ‘We will bring an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK’. The EU Council’s position was set out in its negotiation paper issued in May and in two papers in July. These deal only with what should be in the withdrawal agreement. They foresee the CJEU having continuing jurisdiction over the continued application of EU law after Brexit; to citizens’

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll