‘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 An interesting argument raised by Charles Streeten is that ‘an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn unilaterally at any point prior to the expiry of the two year guillotine imposed by Article 50’.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
‘Social media communications will be the subject of new guidance issued to prosecutors as part of the government’s action plan to tackle hate crime following an increase in the number of incidents.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 26th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Prosecutors will be urged to push for tougher sentences for people committing hate crimes, following a rise in incidents after the EU referendum.’
BBC News, 24th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The only relevant question now left for the UK about the Art 50 notification is what needs to be done before it is given. It is politically inevitable that the referendum result will be accepted and the notification given, perhaps in January next year.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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
‘On 23 June 2016 over 33 million people voted in the EU referendum. Since that date there has been widespread anger from those who believe that the organisation ‘Vote Leave’ misled members of the public. Vote Leave is said to have done so by promoting two claims. First, that the UK sends £350 million to the European Union every week and this money would be spent on the National Health Service if the UK voted to leave the European Union. Second, that remaining in the European Union would lead to unrestricted immigration.’
Church Court Chambers, 7th July 2016
Source: www.churchcourtchambers.co.uk
‘This piece seeks to address only one question: does Parliament or the Government have the power to decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU and through the notifying of the European Council of such a decision trigger the two year time limited formal withdrawal negotiations? Nick Barber, Tom Hickman, and Jeff King have argued valiantly that it will be Parliament who has to “pull the Article 50 trigger”. This piece will analyse their arguments and suggest that, contrary to their conclusions, it is the Government, under the Royal Prerogative, that has legal authority to start the Article 50 process.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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
‘Post-Brexit the separation of powers could be said to be all that is holding this nation together. The Executive is in tatters and Parliament has entered a hiatus without an effective opposition. The only element of our constitutional framework which carries on without pause is the judiciary. It’s a moving proposition to think that those who daily work in courts and public services decimated by cuts are the ones who right now form the only fully functioning element of government.’
Legal Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024