scholarly journals Brexit: lessons learned, status quo and way ahead

2020 ◽  
pp. 146-155
Author(s):  
Sebastjan Okinčic

On 23 June 2016 almost 17.5 million citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The UK government invoked the relevant Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on 29 March 2017. As authors of the said provision have admitted, it was never to be used (Fabbrini, 2017). And yet here we all are/were (depending on when you are reading it), anno domini 2020, witnessing an unprecedented event of a sovereign state “taking back control” i.e. leaving in great pain the most powerful economic and political union of sovereign states ever established, taking advantage of the procedure that had initially not only been de iure impossible, but also seemed inconceivable in and of itself.According to Theresa May, “Brexit means Brexit”. Little help did that tautological definition bring anyone. And yet, after Brexit came, the transition period started. Written in the middle of the said transition period, the purpose of this paper is to briefly treat on Brexit in general and the near-term future related thereto. In addition, also considering the timing of this paper, i.e. May / June 2020, a particular regard will be paid to the more distant future ahead of us – certain matters pertaining to international commercial dispute resolution after Brexit.Considering the overall uncertainty surrounding Brexit that we find ourselves in, the relevance of the topic discussed in the paper is unquestionable. In addition, relevance-wise, one could consider whether the process we are all witnessing could result in encouraging or, rather, discouraging any similar future initiatives. In this context, a broader perspective will be utilised to come to certain indicative conclusions as to whether Brexit can result in good know-how practices learned for future similar initiatives, or rather serve as an example for “never again”.

2020 ◽  
pp. 33-60
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter discusses the different institutions that make up the ‘EU government’. It begins by explaining the Article 50 TEU (Treaty of European Union) process, which sets out how a Member State can leave the EU. The chapter then describes the European Council, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The two other EU institutions set out in Article 13 TEU include the European Central Bank and the Ombudsman. The chapter then considers how the roles of the EU institutions in the UK will change over the next few years following Brexit. It studies the Withdrawal Agreement and assesses what happens after the so-called transition period.


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):  
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.


Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 355-396
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas

This chapter focuses on the constitutional implications of the UK’s membership of the European Union and the constitutional implications of its exit from the EU (or ‘Brexit’). The chapter examines how EU law was accommodated within the UK legal system during the period of the UK’s membership of the EU, and in particular considers the consequences of the primacy of EU law for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The chapter also considers the extent to which lessons learned about the UK constitution as a result of EU membership will remain relevant now that the UK has left the EU.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 20170097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scheherazade S. Rehman ◽  
Pompeo Della Posta

On June 23, 2016, the UK decided to leave the European Union (EU), commonly known as “Brexit”. The UK has two years to conclude their new arrangement with the EU27 after evoking Article 50 Treaty of Lisbon officially, which it did on March 27, 2017. While there is a range of possible trade agreements most are unlikely as they would either imply repudiating firm EU legal principles or strong promises that the current UK government is committed to maintain. The article discusses these options. Moreover, the article focuses on the trade and investment flows between the UK and EU27 and discusses the possible short-term implications of Brexit with a specific attention to the most impacted sector, that of financial services.


2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hemery ◽  
Paul Meerts

AbstractThis article draws on the experience of two series of courses in negotiation and chairing, fifty in all, conducted in preparation for the UK and Finnish Presidencies of the European Union, 2005 and 2006. It outlines the concept and design of the programme, and introduces a four-part analysis of the chair's role which provided the intellectual framework for the series. It examines in detail the structure of the courses and the practical exercises which formed the core of the training. A concluding section draws together the lessons learned. The article would be helpful specifically to those preparing officials for the Presidency of the EU, but also for multilateral negotiations more generally, as well as to those interested in the theory and practice of chairing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Lyudmila Babynina ◽  

The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. On December 31, 2020, the transition period ended, during which all EU rules and regulations applied to Britain. The trade agreement was reached in record time, but it is too early to talk about long-term mutual benefits. The British case in the system of trade and economic agreements of the European Union is unique. On the one hand, at the time of the negotiations, the UK retained EU law, was a member of the EU Single Internal Market and Customs Union, subject to the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice. On the other hand, the EU for the first time found itself in a situation when a third country was determined to distance itself as much as possible from EU rules while concluding a trade agreement, despite the obvious economic losses. At the same time, both sides understood that the absence of an agreement threatened all interested actors with serious losses, and that it must be concluded. As a result, the compromise text of the TCA reflects the fundamentally different approaches of the parties to bilateral cooperation, and its provisions suggest a change of its format in the future.


Author(s):  
Gino Naldi ◽  
Konstantinos Magliveras

Following the 2016 referendum, the UK notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 TEU. Given the political and legal consequences of a much-questioned referendum and the strong opinion of many parts of British society that the UK’s membership should not be terminated, the question arose whether such a notification could be revoked unilaterally. In the absence of any mention in Article 50, expert opinion was divided. International law – that is, the law of treaties and the law of international organizations – does not appear to provide a definite answer, while state practice is rather scarce. The constituent instruments of international and regional organizations containing withdrawal clauses are also silent, except for African organizations and development/investment organizations, which invariably allow Member States to rescind withdrawal notices. As regards the EU Treaties, before the Lisbon Treaty they did not contain a withdrawal clause. In the preliminary ruling given in Wightman v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, which concerned whether an EU Member has the sovereign power under Article 50 to revoke unilaterally a withdrawal notice, the Court of Justice helped to clarify a critical question of EU Law but also of international law.


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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document