The issue of mutual recognition of professional qualifications will feature in the third round of Brexit talks this month, David Davis has told Peers
The talks will also cover economic rights, and will ‘deepen our technical analysis of the social security provisions’, Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, said in a letter this week to the House of Lords EU committee.
On residence rights, he said the EU’s offer to British nationals resident in Member States at the point of exit only goes as far as guaranteeing residence rights.
It ‘does not guarantee the holder of those residence rights any right to onward movement within the EU, for example to work or study in a neighbouring Member State,’ he said.
‘We have questioned whether this is consistent with the principle of reciprocity, and also with the Commission’s desire to protect rights currently enjoyed under EU law.’ Davis said these rights would be the subject of further discussion in due course.
Regarding legal cases pending before the European Court of Justice, Davis said the second round of talks, in July, had looked at ‘the categories of cases in scope for discussion, including cases brought by the UK and cases brought against the UK, and clarified the intent and the rationale for each’. With respect to judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, and ongoing judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the teams had ‘completed an initial scoping of the issues to be addressed in future rounds’.
Davis will make a further statement on progress to the House of Commons in September, when Parliament returns from recess, and will appear before the Lords’ EU committee in October.
Earlier this week, Lord Neuberger, the outgoing President of the Supreme Court, called on Parliament to provide more clarity on how judges are to treat ECJ rulings post-Brexit. While historic ECJ rulings will retain the same binding status in UK courts, it is not yet clear what status rulings made after Brexit will have in the UK.
In an interview with the BBC, Lord Neuberger said judges should not be blamed for any misinterpretation if the position is not made clear.
