News

Brexit news: City heavyweights moot judicial panel for UK/EU disputes as former judge questions May’s ‘national story’ speech

By on
19

Panel would not directly impact on national laws

In a report published this week, the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG), which represents financial services companies and law firms in the City, sets out the need for a “judicial… rather than political or diplomatic” panel for disputes between the UK and EU arising out of any legal agreement on trade.

As negotiations continue towards a post-Brexit landscape, the report, compiled in collaboration with City bigwigs, Hogan Lovells, addresses the key problem of which body should interpret any free trade agreement between the EU and the UK when disputes arise.

At the moment, disputes arising out of EU law are handled by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), of which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a part. But the UK government has sought to reassure Brexit supporters that the ECJ will have no ‘direct jurisdiction’ over the UK, and Britain’s distance from the Luxembourg court is seen as a “red line” issue.

The IRSG report makes it clear that the judicial body which it envisages would be limited in its scope to dealing with disputes arising out of the free trade agreement only rather than EU law more generally — and would not directly impact on national laws, which is what vocal Brexit supporters are so concerned about.

Rachel Kent, global head of the financial institutions sector at Hogan Lovells and Chair of the IRSG’s working group which authored the report, tells Legal Cheek:

Our proposals on dispute resolution follow the premise: ‘one of us, one of them and an independent’ as David Davis, Brexit minister, recently put it. We see that there may well be situations in the future with ‘material divergence’, where the regulatory regimes between the EU and the UK potentially become unaligned after Brexit. If agreement cannot be reached between the parties this lead to disputes between the two sides and in extremis to the UK and EU no longer having access to each others’ markets. We know that a rigorous dispute resolution body is needed to resolve any such disputes, and that it has to be acceptable to both the UK government and the EU.

Kent adds that it looks like the UK government is beginning to tackle these issues. Referencing an interview with David Davis on The Andrew Marr Show at the weekend, she says: “In recent media coverage, it does look as if [Davis] has also taken the problem of “material divergence” on board and recognises that a mechanism to resolve those divergences is needed.”

Meanwhile, in a terse letter to The Times earlier this week, Professor Sir David Edward, former judge of the CJEU, criticised Theresa May’s speech made in Florence last week where she stated that: “The EU has never felt like an integral part of our national story, in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe”.

Edward’s letter (embedded below) says that May “does not speak for his family”, referencing a family member who died during World War II and who is buried in a war cemetery in France.

Edward, currently an emeritus law professor at the University of Edinburgh, has previously lambasted the UK government for its stance on the ECJ, and was quoted in the press as arguing that it’s “not this big bogeyman” and that Ms May “doesn’t know the difference between the court of human rights and the court of justice”.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub.

19 Comments

Anonymous

VOTE LEAVE

TAKE BACK CONTROL

#WINNING

(4)(7)

Does not know Katie King

“impact on”

Yuck to this corporatespeak. What’s wrong with “affect”?

(0)(0)

Not Amused

It is wholly uncontroversial to suggest that the UK never saw the EU project as an emotional or political endeavour. For us it has always been economic.

That is why the Remain campaign focussed itself solely on economic issues. That is why those who still wish to remain continually 1) ignore or downplay EU political integration plans and 2) pretend these plans “simply won’t happen”.

There is no place for invoking WW1 dead in this issue.

It seems inherently curious that the focus is on stopping our leaving. The idea we might re-join after leaving is clearly not envisaged. No one actually appears to believe in or want to try to sell the idea of political integration to the British people. Why is that?

(10)(9)

Anonymous

I did not miss you at all. I wish you never came back

(8)(1)

Just Anonymous

Well said.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

It’s very much a part of our national story in that over half the population have spent the last fifty years whinging about it and blaming it for every tiny problem caused primarily by Westminster. It’s why the Brexitards are entirely emotional in their hatred of it, and totally incapable of formulating any actual options that won’t cause economic catastrophe – at its heart, Brexit is just a big swelling of misdirected anger based on fundamental misunderstandings about everything.

Speak for yourself anyway, for many young people it certainly is an integral part of our heritage. I share far more with my parisien friends than with Welsh goat farmers or northern fishermen, and have lived and worked in the EU for several years. Anyone who lives in London has to go out of their way not to be integrally tied up in the EU whether it’s through their work or their personal life.

(5)(4)

Trumpenkrieg

“I share far more with my parisien friends than with Welsh goat farmers or northern fishermen, and have lived and worked in the EU for several years.”

I.e. that you are a deracinated urban liberal who exists almost entirely through a computer screen and whose personal values are the postmodern universalist garbage that your professors indoctrinated you with during uni?

I think I’d much rather have a pint with a goat farmer or fisherman.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Why is everything you post a verbal attack on a person or group of people? How can someone be so chippy all the time?

(0)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

Presuming you are the anonymous I am replying to and given your initial post was itself a verbal attack on a person or group of people you’re not on very solid ground are you?

(0)(2)

Anonymous

No I’m not the same person as the original poster

(0)(0)

Corbyn. Symphathiser

It’s part of his gimmick. Just ignore and move on.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Calm down dearie. Don’t be so bitter – it’s a simple fact of life that we are nicer, wealthier, and more successful people than you.

(0)(0)

Air Hair Lair

Jacob Rees Mogg? Is that you?

(0)(0)

Air Hair Lair

Yeah, there’s no goat farmers or fishermen where you live.
All this bullshit about ‘the Liberal Elite’.
The only reason the middle classes oppose Brexit is because they are educated. Therefore they don’t read the Express or Mail, and largely don’t watch Murdoch TV.

This is the reason you trolls are here. Anyone with critical thinking ability
knows that Brexit benefits no-one but highest level tax dodgers and foreign interests.

(0)(0)

Corbyn. Symphathiser

The idea we wouldn’t rejoin after leaving isn’t considered because we wouldn’t have the rebate, we’d have to adopt the Euro, etc. That’s why staying was an emminently better decision, and it is now clear that the government is wholly and woefully under-prepared to deal with the fallout of its own referendum.

We are going to get shafted.

Still. #takebacktheremotecontrol

(6)(2)

Air Hair Lair

We aren’t leaving, because we are integrated into the political union.
The negotiations are already over- they can’t satisfy EU citizens rights, Irish border or financial settlement.
If they leave with no deal, bang , that’s it , financial meltdown, european baleout, remain in single market and join euro will be the terms of the baleout.
Why bother?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Impostering beta cuck

(2)(0)

Air Hair Lair

Are those even words?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.