header-logo header-logo

May sets out Brexit priorities

19 January 2017
Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Prime minister confirms plans to leave single market & CJEU jurisdiction

Brexit means leaving the single market and leaving the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), Prime Minister Theresa May has confirmed.

In a major speech this week, May said the UK must be able to seek new trade deals elsewhere, and free to set “competitive tax rates”. The UK would either seek a new customs agreement or become an associate member of the customs union. May said there would be a “phased process of implementation”, but gave no indication of the time involved.

Andrew Langdon QC, Chairman of the Bar, said May’s speech underlined the importance of securing the best possible market access for the services sector, including legal services.

“Brexit must also deliver certainty for families and consumers,” he said.

“It is vital for UK citizens that judgments made in one country will be recognised and enforceable in another.”

Meanwhile, lawyers have raised questions about the future of civil justice co-operation with the EU once we leave the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, who is acting for Deir Dos Santos in the Art 50 case currently before the Supreme Court (to be decided on Tuesday 24 January), gave evidence on this subject to the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee last week.

Writing in NLJ, Greene says many litigators would prefer the UK to “agree and adopt, on a reciprocal basis, the Brussels Regulation (recast) and the Service Regulation, sign up to Lugano II and we adopt into domestic law Rome I and Rome II...We have to advise the government that this is not a perfect regime but it is tried and tested and should be largely retained within a UK model.”

Greene also predicts that a lengthy transition period may be required. “It seems a tall order to be stuffing all this into a two-year timetable when it appears the government has yet to make up its mind what it wants,” he says.

“For this reason we will probably need a transition period with sunrise and sunset provisions; sunrise on Brexit and perhaps a sunset two years later giving four years from the Art 50 notice.”

Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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