header-logo header-logo

Brexit uncertainty persists

28 November 2018
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Bar Council issues advisory paper on no deal implications

Theresa May flew to Scotland this week to try to shore up support for the Brexit deal before an almost certainly stormy vote in the House of Commons next month.

With both main political parties divided and confused, it remains unclear whether a future Britain will be Norway, Canada, Singapore or just poorer, while many in the pro-EU camp are clinging to the possibility of a second referendum.

Last week, city lawyers gave a broadly positive response to the 585-page draft withdrawal agreement itself.

Meanwhile, the Bar Council has followed the Law Society in issuing advice to its members on what to do in the event of a no deal Brexit. It warned barristers that, even if the prime minister’s plan is accepted by Parliament, the shape of any agreement on professional services is ‘extremely uncertain’.

Moreover, a no deal could impact on those working in family, personal injury and even criminal cases where any of the key individuals such as victims and witnesses are in an EU member state.

The paper also explains that although the intention of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to import EU law wholesale into UK law on Brexit day, amendments may be made by statutory instrument. It states that the ‘legislative structure inevitably gives rise to widespread uncertainty as to the likely amendments and repeals that will be made in a no deal situation.

‘In addition, although the message received from [government] is “no policy change”, some changes are inevitable as a result of no longer being inside the EU. Moreover, the speed and extent of future divergence is difficult to predict and is likely to vary from one policy area to another. There would also be significant challenges in making certain regimes work effectively in the absence of reciprocity from other member states and/or the EU.’  

Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

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