header-logo header-logo

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

Brexit uncertainty persists

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll