‘The number of suspected race hate crimes on Britain’s railways jumped sharply following the EU referendum, figures show.’
The Guardian, 22nd August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It will be a while yet before the dust settles following the outcome of the 23 June referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. London’s litigators are likely to have voted in different ways on an issue that touches so many different areas of our lives. But I am sure all would agree that the uncertainties generated by the result have the capacity to damage London as a global centre for litigation if not properly managed and addressed. Other litigation hubs are already seeking to capitalise and highlight challenges litigants in London may now face in a bid to attract work. It is vital that as a profession we work to meet that head on.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 9th August 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘After the shock waves felt as a result of the Brexit vote, how should companies deal with corporate governance and criminal risk issues? What should companies be monitoring as they await changes that will take place once the Brexit Article 50 trigger is pulled?’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 9th August 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has issued a briefing on the future for IP rights after Brexit. This gives IP owners some crumbs of comfort to innovative businesses, but little detail.’
Technology Law Update, 5th August 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Numerous members of the new Government have stated that they want a greater role in the world for a post-Brexit UK, rather than a diminished one. If the Government is to be diplomatically resurgent, what sort of challenges might it wish to confront?.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd August 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer because of the fall in the value of sterling since the Brexit vote has been denied the usual benefits of enhanced interest, indemnity costs and an additional payment that would have been the maximum £75,000 given the sums at stake.’
Litigation Futures, 29th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This second paper examines the impact of the decision to withdraw from the EU on the UK’s current extradition arrangements, in particular the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) system. The focus of the paper is on the legal consequences that will follow from a decision to trigger the process of withdrawal under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, and possible alternatives to the current system of extradition that could be adopted in any post-EU legal system.’
6 KBW, 13th July 2016
Source: www.6kbw.com
‘As the nation grapples with the impact of Brexit on migration, Ronan Toal briefs readers on the major revisions already introduced by the Immigration Act 2016.’
Counsel, August 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘Evanna Fruithof, Alexandria Carr and Gordon Nardell QC set out possible models for the UK’s relationship with the EU post-Brexit.’
Counsel, August 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘With the constitution of a new UK Government formed around a policy of ‘Brexit’, and the creation of the new ministerial position of ‘Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’, the likelihood that Article 50 will actually be triggered has increased significantly. In addition to the cavalcade of recent posts addressing who is constitutionally empowered to make the Article 50 notification, attention has also been given to the question of whether an Article 50 notification made in conformity with the constitutional requirements of the UK could be subsequently revoked. An interesting argument raised by Charles Streeten is that ‘an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn unilaterally at any point prior to the expiry of the two year guillotine imposed by Article 50’. This post responds by challenging this argument on two grounds, arguing that ultimately a Member State cannot unilaterally revoke an Article 50 notification once it is made. It will do so by firstly outlining the argument made by Streeten, before explaining its difficulties and attempting to clarify the legal position. In concluding, it will be argued that the decision to trigger Article 50 is one that should be taken with the greatest care; relying upon technical legal arguments to provide a safety net risks creating further uncertainty and undermining the position of the UK in subsequent negotiations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Unions warned workers might pay the price for leaving the EU. The government must not invoke article 50 until it has negotiated a secure future for them ‘
The Guardian, 26th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Most discussion relating to the referendum result has focussed on the effect that Brexit will have upon our constitutional arrangements or workers’ rights. This blog post will focus on the effect that Brexit will have upon the UK system of company law. Unfortunately, the current uncertainty regarding the terms on which the UK will leave the EU (if indeed it does) means that a definitive answer cannot be provided, but several principal possibilities can be advanced.’
OUP Blog, 19th July 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The EU widened the scope of protection against gender discrimination considerably. Advancements have included protection relating to equal pay, paid time off for antenatal appointments, pregnancy discrimination, parental leave and urgent time off for family reasons, paid maternity leave and the right to equal treatment for part-time, fixed-term and agency workers.’
Cloisters, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘One area of law where Brexit may have an impact is employment law.’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st July 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘On 24 June 2016 the right to live in the United Kingdom for over 3 million people of its people was suddenly cast into doubt. If generous provision is not made for them we are looking at the biggest mass expulsion of population since 1290, when Edward I infamously ordered the Jews of England into exile.’
Free Movement, 12th July 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘On the legal front, the current debate focuses on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin the Brexit process. Some argue (quite convincingly) that only Parliament has this authority (and see Barber, Hickman, and King’s post). Others argue that Government, and in fact the Prime Minister, acting under the Royal Prerogative, can act without the approval of Parliament. The latter is, apparently, the view of Government’s lawyers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The first legal attempt to prevent the prime minister initiating Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is to be heard later this month.’
The Guardian, 8th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Alea jacta est said Caesar, having crossed the Rubicon and burned his bridges. The Brexit referendum appears equally momentous and irreversible. But is it? There have been calls for Parliament simply to ignore the outcome. A fresh general election should be called to resolve the mounting constitutional crisis.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024