31 October 2024
Why the EU Charter Matters
This blog post argues that the most interesting aspect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the moment is its impact on remedies in national law. Almost 15 years since its entry into force, it is not unusual to meet domestic lawyers and judges who will voice doubts as to whether the Charter really matters in practice. Yet, through the right to an effective remedy under Article 47, the Charter opens up domestic law for new (or modified) remedies, thus placing national procedural autonomy under greater constraint than it was from the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. Continue reading >>
0 
23 July 2021
Towards a Radical Revision of the Northern Ireland Protocol?
The UK Government’s Command Paper released on 21 July 2021 urges a renegotiation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, which forms part of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The EU has already indicated that a renegotiation is out of the question. In fact, this blog post argues that it would be constitutionally impossible for the EU to agree to the UK’s proposals without agreeing to a radical revision of the Protocol that would endanger the achievement of its overall aims. In addition, the invocation of Article 16 (the safeguards clause) as discussed in the Command Paper would not resolve the underlying issues either and the UK Government knows this. But that leaves the question: What is the Command Paper really about? Continue reading >>19 March 2021
A Tricky Move
The European Commission’s decision to commence legal proceedings against the United Kingdom for unilaterally extending certain grace periods for the movement of goods in contravention to the Northern Ireland Protocol is legally sound, but politically tricky. In legal terms, the decision to launch both infringement proceedings and take first steps towards arbitration is the most promising avenue towards UK compliance with the Protocol. Yet it brings with it a political risk of further escalating the tensions around the Protocol within Northern Ireland and between the EU and the UK. Continue reading >>
0
16 April 2019
After the Second Brexit Extension: What Now?
Unless the Withdrawal Act is adopted after all, the UK will need to elect MEPs in May. It is unlikely, however, that European Parliament elections will help to resolve the political impasse in Westminster. Hence, something else will have to move. Continue reading >>15 November 2018
On Thin Ice: the Role of the Court of Justice under the Withdrawal Agreement
Her alleged red line of bringing “an end to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in Britain” was always going to be a problem for Theresa May: After all, the UK’s commitment to comply with certain EU rules would inevitably mean that the ECJ’s interpretations of these rules would have to be binding on the UK. It is thus no surprise that the Withdrawal Agreement provides for the jurisdiction of the ECJ in various places. What is perhaps more of a surprise – and surely a negotiation win for the UK – is the EU’s legally problematic concession of an arbitration mechanism to resolve inter-party disputes over the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement. Continue reading >>01 May 2018
Has Parliament Taken Charge of Brexit?
The UK House of Lords has adopted amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that would make the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement contingent on parliamentary approval. It is not at all clear which, if any, of the Lords amendments will survive in the House of Commons, and we may not find out for a while. It may be premature to conclude that Parliament is now fully in charge of the Brexit process. What the amendments show, however, is that Parliament can assert control if it chooses to do so. Continue reading >>
0
24 August 2017
Dispute Resolution after Brexit
When setting out her priorities for the Brexit negotiations in a speech at Lancaster House in January, Theresa May promised to ‘bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.’ This forcefully formulated ‘red line’ turned into a headache for the British negotiators as it was both somewhat misconceived – the ECJ’s preliminary reference procedure hardly results in jurisdiction ‘in Britain’ – and overly categorical ignoring both the likely content of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the shape of the future UK-EU relationship envisaged by her own government as a ‘new, deep and special partnership.’ Today’s paper on ‘enforcement and dispute resolution’ should therefore be welcomed as injecting a portion of realism and pragmatism in the debate over the ECJ. Continue reading >>13 March 2017
Once More unto the Breach? An Independent Scotland, Europe, and the Law
Today, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has announced that she would ask the Scottish Parliament to allow her to agree with the UK Government on another independence referendum. The Scottish people should be given a right to decide – once the terms of Brexit are known – whether to stick with the UK and leave the EU or pursue the route of independence and stay within ‘Europe’. This blog post will briefly outline some of the legal obstacles on the way, both internal and external. Continue reading >>24 January 2017
The Supreme Court in Miller – some early comments
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in the Miller appeal was probably greeted with a sigh of relief in 10 Downing Street. Sure, the Government will now need to seek parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50 TEU and starting the formal process of withdrawing from the EU, but the much greater political danger of having to also seek the consent of the devolved parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, has not materialised. What follows are a few brief comments on the Supreme Court’s reasoning and an assessment of its implications for the future. Continue reading >>
0
12 December 2016