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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll