The UK's Withdrawal from the EU

Author(s):  
Michael Dougan

Following a national referendum on 23 June 2016, the UK announced its intention to end its decades-long membership of the EU. That decision initiated a process of complex negotiations, governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, with a view to making the arrangements required for an ‘orderly Brexit’. This book explores the UK’s departure from the EU from a legal perspective. As well as analysing the various constitutional principles relevant to ‘EU withdrawal law’, and detailing the main issues and problems arising during the Brexit process itself, the book provides a critical analysis of the final EU–UK Withdrawal Agreement—including dedicated chapters on the future protection of citizens’ rights, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the prospects for future EU–UK relations in fields such as trade and security.

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Annegret Engel

This paper discusses the key legal issues arising from the constitutional conceptions of both the EU and the UK in the latter’s withdrawal process. It argues that the adherent Brexit dilemma is mainly the result of the UK’s non-codified constitution on the one hand, exposing legal uncertainty over institutional procedures, regional involvement, or the precise status of international law. Nevertheless, the EU’s composition of the withdrawal process as defined in Article 50 TEU has also caused confusion during the negotiations of the withdrawal agreement, the future EU-UK relationship, as well as the possibility of revocation. Due to its unprecedented nature, the several uncertainties and flaws inherent in this case have consumed valuable time and resources which could have otherwise been used more efficiently in order to ensure a smooth and orderly departure from the EU.


2021 ◽  
pp. 21-47
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan

This chapter sets out the basic constitutional framework, under EU law, governing the withdrawal of a Member State. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union recognizes the sovereign right of any State to leave the EU and sets out a process for agreeing the terms of an orderly departure. But Brexit also required the EU and the UK to undertake extensive internal preparations, to ensure their own legal systems were ready for the UK’s departure. Moreover, Article 50 itself is drafted in only brief and sketchy terms, leaving many important decisions about Brexit to be worked out in practice. And EU law allows for other final outcomes to the withdrawal process—including a ‘no deal Brexit’; or the UK’s right to ‘revoke and remain’ under the Wightman ruling.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The Withdrawal Agreement, adopted on the basis of Article 50 Treaty on European Union (TEU), spells out the terms and conditions of the UK departure from the EU, including ground-breaking solutions to deal with the thorniest issues which emerged in the context of the withdrawal negotiations. Admittedly, the Withdrawal Agreement is only a part of the Brexit deal. The Agreement, in fact, is accompanied by a connected political declaration, which outlines the framework of future EU–UK relations. The chapter then offers a chronological summary of the process that led to the adoption of the Withdrawal Agreement, describing the crucial stages in the Brexit process — from the negotiations to the conclusion of a draft agreement and its rejection, to the extension and the participation of the UK to European Parliament (EP) elections, to the change of UK government and the ensuing constitutional crisis, to the new negotiations with the conclusion of a revised agreement, new extension, and new UK elections eventually leading to the departure of the UK from the EU.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This chapter analyses the European Union during Brexit, explaining how the EU institutions and Member States reacted to the UK’s decision to leave the EU. It outlines how they went about this in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The EU institutions and Member States managed to adopt a very united stance vis-à-vis a withdrawing state, establishing effective institutional mechanisms and succeeding in imposing their strategic preferences in the negotiations with the UK. Nevertheless, the EU was also absorbed during Brexit by internal preparations to face both the scenario of a ‘hard Brexit’—the UK leaving the EU with no deal—and of a ‘no Brexit’—with the UK subsequently delaying exit and extending its EU membership. Finally, during Brexit the EU increasingly started working as a union of 27 Member States—the EU27—which in this format opened a debate on the future of Europe and developed new policy initiatives, especially in the field of defence and military cooperation.


Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino

This chapter focuses on the current interaction between European Union and UK law. EU law is currently a source of UK law. However, the relationship between the two regimes is expected to change in the future as a consequence of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stipulates that the European Communities Act 1972 will be ‘repealed on exit day’, which would be 29 March 2019 provided that the two-year period since Article 50 TEU was triggered is not extended. Once the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed, EU law will cease to be a source of UK law. No major immediate changes to the national competition legislation are to be expected, but future reforms could distance the UK system from the EU rules.


2014 ◽  
pp. 116-131
Author(s):  
Beata Słupek

The subject of this publication is the scepticism regarding the future of the European Union in the UK. The research is based on Eurobarometer surveys conducted over the period of five years. A purpose of the research is to show the relationship between the results of the Eurobarometer survey on the future of the EU, and the eurosceptic views in the UK. The main research questions is: is the UK sceptical about the future of the EU? Hypothesis of this publication is that the UK is sceptical about the future of the European Union. The reasons for such attitudes are not analysed here – the article is merely an attempt to present the societal attitudes. The research method employed is the comparative critical analysis of quantitative data. The conclusion is that Great Britain is not significantly eurosceptic. British people are, however, less enthusiastic about what is happening at present in the EU, and also are showing greater anxieties when it comes to the future of the EU.


Author(s):  
Catherine Barnard ◽  
Emilija Leinarte

This chapter addresses the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement dealing with the protection of citizens’ rights. It explains the scope of application and the content of the rights afforded to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU after Brexit. The chapter also looks at the enforcement of citizens’ rights, both in the EU and the UK. While the rights of EU citizens already in the UK, and rights of UK citizens in the EU, are fairly generously protected under the WA, the mechanism for enforcement of such rights raises questions of effectiveness. Moreover, the special jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement, while a logical outcome from the perspective of EU constitutional law, will disappoint those who supported the UK government’s insistence that ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU was one of the UK’s red lines during the Article 50 TEU negotiations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 409-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gordon

The United Kingdom 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union – challenges of pursuing the decision to withdraw – challenges for the UK constitution in commencing, executing, concluding, and legitimising EU withdrawal – domestic constitutional requirements for triggering Article 50 TEU – roles of UK government, UK Parliament, and devolved institutions in Brexit – a second referendum or a national general election on withdrawal terms – exiting the EU as a challenge of the UK’s political constitution – Brexit as exposing limitations of the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and architecture – Brexit as an unprecedented event and the centrality of politics – constitutional factors contributing to the outcome of the referendum – concerns about sovereignty and the (im)possibility of a national response – potential implications of the referendum for the UK and for the EU


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 15-38
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker

In June 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union (EU). The consequences of Brexit are wide-ranging, but, from a legal perspective, it will entail the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The UK government does not intend to repeal EU law which is in existence on exit day, but, in terms of the interpretation of retained law, decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will no longer be binding after Brexit. Nevertheless, s. 6(2) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does allow the UK courts to continue to pay regard to EU law and decisions of the CJEU ‘so far as it is relevant to any matter before the court’. This article will consider the meaning of the phrase ‘ may have regard to anything…so far as it is relevant’. In empowering the courts to consider post-Brexit CJEU authority subject to the undefined criterion of relevancy, how is this power likely to be exercised? A comparison will be drawn with the treatment of Privy Council and the UK case law in Commonwealth courts following the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, with particular reference to the example of Australia. It will be argued that guidance may be obtained from the common law legal family which can help us predict the future relevance and persuasiveness of CJEU case law in the interpretation of retained EU private law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
David Feldman

FOLLOWING a referendum on 23 June 2016 in which 52% of voters (38% of the total electorate) had expressed a preference for the UK to leave the EU, the Government announced that it would start the process of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”), by notifying the European Council of the UK's decision, exercising the Government's prerogative power to conduct foreign relations. A number of legal challenges were fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. In R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Birnie and others intervening) [2017] UKSC 5; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 583 after an expedited hearing, the Court decided two issues: (1) whether the Government could exercise its power under the royal prerogative to give notice, or needed an Act of Parliament to authorise the giving of notice; and (2) whether the Government required the consent of devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before giving notice or introducing to Parliament a Bill authorising the giving of notice. The Court sat unprecedentedly with all 11 serving members. On issue (1), the Court, by an 8–3 majority, held that an Act of Parliament would be required in order to authorise the giving of notice. On issue (2), the Court unanimously held that there was no legal requirement for consent by the devolved institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document