header-logo header-logo

Major Brexit report for lawyers

12 August 2020
Issue: 7899 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Profession
printer mail-detail
LexisNexis has published a free, comprehensive guide for lawyers on navigating the end of the Brexit transition process

The 103-page report, ‘Continental shift: navigating the Brexit transition’, includes insights and guidance on the impact on key practice areas such as data protection, corporate, commercial law, employment and intellectual property. The guide highlights useful information, materials and commentary for further reading throughout.

Key topics include the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, negotiation of the future UK-EU relationship, domestic policy and legislation, and preparation for the legal landscape beyond Brexit.

The transition period was considered ‘ambitious’ from the outset, and has been hampered further by the COVID-19 crisis, the report notes. The 1 July deadline for extending transition with the EU has passed. Any remaining procedures or policies for extending are ‘uncertain and open to debate’, it concludes. The report considers six potential legal routes for extension―all problematic. For example, some EU lawyers have suggested using Art 50 as a legal basis, although others argue this route was closed on Brexit day, 31 January 2020.

Nevertheless, the report quotes Professor Catherine Barnard, senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe: ‘Never rule out the ingenuity of EU lawyers if forced to come up with some imaginative solution on getting round the problem come autumn.’

Meanwhile, lawyers need to advise clients on continuing their business supply chains within WTO rules, except where trade deals exist. In January, it is likely the UK will have ‘third country’ status, incurring EU tariffs on goods and without access to the single market for goods and services, regulatory approval and recognition.

Priority targets for deals include the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. The UK is considering accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes some South American and Asian countries and Australia.

The report can be requested at: https://bit.ly/3gIuMJU.

Issue: 7899 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll