‘Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald has struck a bullish tone of defiance in response to concerns that Germany and the Netherlands are creating English-language commercial courts to compete with the UK for disputes post Brexit.’
Legal Futures, 13th February 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Euroscepticism – usually framed as an argument from national sovereignty – was an important driving force behind Brexit, but also serves as a key motivator behind efforts to reform domestic human rights law. Calls to ‘scrap the Human Rights Act’ (HRA) and to replace it with a British Bill of Rights (BBR) are usually accompanied by calls to curtail the power of the European Court of Human Rights and to make British judges the ultimate arbiter in human rights matters (again). The connections between Brexit and human rights reform are not confined to these common ideological roots, however. Brexit has profound consequences for human rights reform in both substantive and procedural terms. These are the findings of a new research paper edited by the authors of this blog post and based on the proceedings of a workshop held at Edinburgh Law School in the autumn of last year.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Competition Bulletin is pleased to welcome the second in a three-part series of blogs on Brexit and merger control by Ben Forbes and Mat Hughes of AlixPartners. Ben and Mat are (with others) co-authors of the new Sweet & Maxwell book, “UK Merger Control: Law and Practice”.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 10th February 2017
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘A majority of police forces in England and Wales saw record levels of hate crimes in the first full three months following the EU referendum, according to new analysis.’
BBC News, 15th February 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Many celebrated Miller’s outcome, imposing a Parliamentary “brake” (however brief) on the triggering of Article 50. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous agreement on the devolution issues [129–151 for the majority; agreement in the dissents at 242, 243, and 282] may have weakened opposition to the Government’s “other” crusade—against the European Court of Human Rights.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This White Paper provides Parliament and the country with a clear vision of what we are seeking to achieve in negotiating our exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union.’
Official Publications, 2nd February 2017
‘Michael Allum, Solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP, considers the implications of maintenance agreements in financial remedies cases.’
Family Law Week, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Stuart Clark, Associate, and David Hodson, Partner, both of The International Family Law Group LLP, describe what is known, and ask some questions, of the MoJ’s latest initiative to facilitate an online divorce system.’
Family Law Week, 7th February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Some of the accumulated noxious legal dust will now settle with the enacting of the grossly mistitled EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. We may have witnessed our first post-legal legal event. Populist law. If many people say a legally incorrect thing many times, it may come to be treated as if it were correct. Alternative law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘EU diplomats have warned the Foreign Office that the UK will not be able to leave the jurisdiction of the European court of justice (ECJ) if there is to be a transition period while details of Brexit are negotiated.’
The Guardian, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Two senior judges have blocked a legal challenge to the government’s strategy for leaving the single market and the European Economic Area.’
The Guardian, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘David Davis failed to placate Conservative rebels concerned about the status of European Union migrants and other Brexit details, despite publishing a 77-page white paper setting out the government’s plans for leaving the EU.’
The Guardian, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘When Sir Ivan Rogers stepped down in January as the UK’s top official in Brussels, he urged his colleagues to “continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking” and not to be afraid “to speak the truth to those in power.” The implication was clear. The government’s Brexit preparations displayed all these failings but the politicians responsible did not like having this pointed out.’
OUP Blog, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The government’s Brexit strategy faces a fresh legal challenge in the high court on Friday when campaigners argue that parliament must separately legislate to remove the UK from the European Economic Area (EEA) and the single market.’
The Guardian, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Britain’s £26bn legal industry is under threat from post-Brexit restrictions to freedom of movement and exit from the single market, the country’s top lawyers have warned. MPs on the Justice Select Committee, who are gathering evidence on the impact of leaving the EU, were told that there would be little left to “salvage” of the successful industry if lawyers were stripped of free movement and lost the right to practise in the EU because of differing regulations.’
The Independent, 1st February 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government’s Brexit strategy will come under scrutiny when an official policy document setting out its plans is published later.’
BBC News, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Access to the EU’s financial markets should be based on common recognition of global standards instead of the current “granular, technical and detailed” legislation, the head of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th January 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In circumstances of “normal” membership of the European Union, the UK Supreme Court’s dicta in the Miller judgment that EU law is an “independent and overriding source of domestic law” [Paragraph 65] may well have caused a constitutional storm. In the current unprecedented tempest of Brexit, however, Lord Neuberger’s announcement of this statement passed as little more than a side-wind. This short post will briefly turn the magnifying glass on this judicial formulation, which will be labelled the “conditional primacy” of EU law within the United Kingdom’s domestic constitutional order.
UK Constitutional Law Association, January 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The judgments in Miller highlight the fact that the common law has never managed to arrive at a satisfactory intellectual framework for European law. I will focus first on Lord Reed’s dissent. On Lord Reed’s account, the situation is simpler than anyone who had observed UK and EU law for the past 45 years could have imagined. The UK takes a dualist approach to international law, and EU law is international law. Once this characterisation is accepted the case is over.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th January 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court judgment in Gina Miller is not merely an affirmation of what the High Court said. The eight member majority confirmed the earlier decision, but also took the opportunity to restate a fundamental principle, which had been left implicit by the court below. The High Court said that the substantive rights arising out of EU law and the European Communities Act 1972, in employment, environment, consumer protection, competition or free movement, could not be abolished merely by the exercise of the royal prerogative. This was a standard interpretation of existing law, adapted for the context of Article 50. The Supreme Court accepted that this was correct, but added one additional reason.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th January 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025