EU-UK agreement for implementing Brexit
POPULARITY
9 episodes with withdrawal agreement
8 episodes with withdrawal agreement
6 episodes with withdrawal agreement
4 episodes with withdrawal agreement
2 episodes with withdrawal agreement
2 episodes with withdrawal agreement
3 episodes with withdrawal agreement
2 episodes with withdrawal agreement
2 episodes with withdrawal agreement
Great Yarmouth in Norfolk is probably a town you have never heard of, but it has a large population of EU migrant workers who came to the UK before Brexit to work in chicken factories and on farms. We wanted to know about their lives especially their working conditions. The working conditions were not good, and harassment and bullying were common. We were interested to know what they did about this, did they actually enforce any of their employment rights and if not, why not? In her address to the IIEA, Professor Barnard answers the question: “What Happens When Enforcement Doesn't Happen: The Implications for the Individuals, for Other Employers and for The State.” About the Speaker: Catherine Barnard is Professor of EU law and Employment Law and senior tutor and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. She is the author of EU Employment Law, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms, and European Union. She is a member of the European Commission funded European Labour Law Network (ELLN). She is also a Senior Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe (UKCE). Her work focuses on the legal issues around migration, together with the legal and constitutional issues associated with Brexit, in particular examining the Withdrawal Agreement and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
In the past decade, the European Union has faced unprecedented challenges; the first withdrawal of a Member State from the Union, increased irregular migration flows, and international conflict on European soil. These events pose legal, as well as political, challenges which the legal services of the EU institutions must navigate. The Council Legal Service assists the European Council, the Council, and its preparatory bodies in ensuring the legality and the drafting quality of acts and contributes to identifying legally correct and politically acceptable solutions to the challenges faced by the EU. In her address to the IIEA, Emer Finnegan, Director General of the Council Legal Service, discusses how European law has been used to respond to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and how the Legal Service assists the institutions in responding to other major political challenges for the EU. About the Speaker: Emer Finnegan is the Director-General of the Council Legal Service and the Legal Counsel of the European Council. She is the first Irish national and the second woman to hold these posts. Ms Finnegan has worked in the Council Legal Service since 1999 and was made a Director in the Service in 2015. As a Director, she was responsible for legal issues in the Competitiveness, Environment, and Transport, Telecom, and Energy Councils, and for legal issues concerning Employment, Social Affairs, Education, Agriculture and Fisheries. Ms Finnegan was closely involved with the negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the UK, and she has extensive experience representing the Council before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Here is our August roundup, and the first podcast with Sonia both leading and at the editing helm (eek!). This month we cover statistics, illegal working fines, asylum support, homeless refugees, adult dependent relatives and some EUSS updates. Following feedback from our reader survey, we have included timestamps below. We will also link directly to the quiz when we post on Free Movement about the podcast. Policy (01:00) Journalists perform a public service in exposing dodgy lawyers. But… Twitter, Musk's X, Threads, social media and Free Movement Look closer: our summary of the latest Home Office statistics Tripling maximum illegal working fines for employers to £45k per worker is a terrible idea Asylum (10:14) Home Office change in practice increases risk of homelessness for recognised refugees More delays, more refusals, no ‘bad faith': the latest trafficking statistics What next for evacuated Sudanese nationals? Is the Home Office unlawfully treating asylum claims as withdrawn? High Court demands radical change to Home Office asylum support ‘Systematic and routine' use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is unlawful Family (26:00) Getting an adult dependent relative visa is hard but not impossible EU (28:29) Who qualifies as a “durable partner” under the EU Settlement Scheme? Post-Brexit spouses aren't protected by the Withdrawal Agreement, Court of Appeal confirms Work routes (30:00) What is the immigration skills charge? How to apply for a religious work visa Immigration (31:30) No Windrush compensation for man whose ILR lapsed while imprisoned abroad How do I become an OISC adviser? Updated articles (35:50) General grounds for refusal: alleged deception, false information and innocent mistakes How to apply for a UK Expansion Worker visa What are the financial requirements for UK spouse and partner visas? How to make a complaint to the Home Office
Colin and Sonia take a look back at 2022 and ahead to 2023 as well as covering the immigration updates from December 2022. Looking back, they talk about small boat crossings, the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, the impact (or lack of) the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Rwanda judgment, the asylum backlog and the net migration figures. Looking to the future they cover Rishi Sunak's asylum plan, whether the Home Office can cope, the prospect of yet more legislation and the ideas for immigration restrictions on families, students and workers floated via The Times over the Christmas break. Finally, they cover several litigation developments for lawyers from December 2022 and end by discussing to big cases for EU citizens with pre settled status. Phew. Looking back and ahead Free Movement review of the year 2022 Rishi Sunak announces new new plan for asylum Has Sunak's bank account closure plan killed off the Windrush Lessons Learned Review? High court rules Rwanda plan is lawful When will there be another Rwanda removal flight? Litigation What is the duty of candour? Social media and the duty of candour in age assessment proceedings False imprisonment claimant punished for failing to negotiate Tribunal quarterly statistics: 54 week waiting time for asylum appeals and 26,000 cases outstanding Five million pound investment to increase the number of days tribunals operate EU citizens Win for Pre-Settled Status holders accessing benefits High Court finds EU Settlement Scheme breaches the Withdrawal Agreement
This week's episode is live!
For months now rumours have been circulating that the British government was planning to scrap parts of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement which it signed up it after the 2019 General Election. This agreement is a legally binding agreement and was seen to be the foundation of the UK-EU relationship going forward after Britain’s departure from the European Union.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) warmly invite you to an online Rapid Response Seminar on the UK Internal Market Bill. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21 was introduced on 9 September 2020 and contained what observers have called constitutional dynamite and the newspapers described as ‘Britannia waives the rules.’ Ministers have alternatively called it ‘his does break international law in a specific and limited way’ or justified it as a reaction to a material breach by the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol. A detailed provision authorising Ministers (possibly with consent of Parliament) to breach international law and preventing access to the courts is unprecedented. The three Research Centres of the Faculty of Law have joined forces to analyse three aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill in a rapid response seminar. Experts on EU law, international law and public law will jointly discuss different aspects of the introduction, passage and potential consequences of the Bill. While the content of the Bill and the rules governing the internal market are equally controversial, these will be discussed in detail in November during an academic CELS seminar. The rapid response given by members of the three research centres is designed to bring different legal perspectives together and provide expert opinions on this new legislation from diverse points of view. It will allow enough time for an online Q&A, so please submit your questions through the chat. Welcome – UK Internal Market Bill Rapid Response Seminar (5 min) Professor Mark Elliot (for the Faculty of Law) Professor Alison Young (for the Centre for Public Law) Professor Catherine Barnard (for CELS) Dr Lorand Bartels (for the LCIL) Panel 1 – The Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement Act (Special status of EU law, international law in UK domestic law, why are state aid and customs checks a problem for the UK internal market?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Gehring Dr Bartels– International law Professor Barnard – EU law Dr Steinfeld – Public law Panel 2 – The breach of an international treaty, the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament (Is there a breach, does it matter, does the Ministerial Code prevent it, why are the devolved administrations concerned?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Hinarejos Dr Bartels – International law Dr Gehring – EU law Professor Young – Public law Panel 3 – Consequences of breaches in international law, reactions by the EU, ongoing trade negotiations and dispute settlement (Analysis of the statements by the Cabinet Office and the EU Commission and EU Parliament, US politicians?) (25 min) Chair: Professor Barnard Dr Bartels – International Law Professor Armstrong – EU Law Professor Young – Public law Questions and Answers (30 min)
The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) warmly invite you to an online Rapid Response Seminar on the UK Internal Market Bill. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21 was introduced on 9 September 2020 and contained what observers have called constitutional dynamite and the newspapers described as ‘Britannia waives the rules.’ Ministers have alternatively called it ‘his does break international law in a specific and limited way’ or justified it as a reaction to a material breach by the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol. A detailed provision authorising Ministers (possibly with consent of Parliament) to breach international law and preventing access to the courts is unprecedented. The three Research Centres of the Faculty of Law have joined forces to analyse three aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill in a rapid response seminar. Experts on EU law, international law and public law will jointly discuss different aspects of the introduction, passage and potential consequences of the Bill. While the content of the Bill and the rules governing the internal market are equally controversial, these will be discussed in detail in November during an academic CELS seminar. The rapid response given by members of the three research centres is designed to bring different legal perspectives together and provide expert opinions on this new legislation from diverse points of view. It will allow enough time for an online Q&A, so please submit your questions through the chat. Welcome – UK Internal Market Bill Rapid Response Seminar (5 min) Professor Mark Elliot (for the Faculty of Law) Professor Alison Young (for the Centre for Public Law) Professor Catherine Barnard (for CELS) Dr Lorand Bartels (for the LCIL) Panel 1 – The Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement Act (Special status of EU law, international law in UK domestic law, why are state aid and customs checks a problem for the UK internal market?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Gehring Dr Bartels– International law Professor Barnard – EU law Dr Steinfeld – Public law Panel 2 – The breach of an international treaty, the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament (Is there a breach, does it matter, does the Ministerial Code prevent it, why are the devolved administrations concerned?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Hinarejos Dr Bartels – International law Dr Gehring – EU law Professor Young – Public law Panel 3 – Consequences of breaches in international law, reactions by the EU, ongoing trade negotiations and dispute settlement (Analysis of the statements by the Cabinet Office and the EU Commission and EU Parliament, US politicians?) (25 min) Chair: Professor Barnard Dr Bartels – International Law Professor Armstrong – EU Law Professor Young – Public law Questions and Answers (30 min) This entry provides an audio source.
The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) warmly invite you to an online Rapid Response Seminar on the UK Internal Market Bill. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21 was introduced on 9 September 2020 and contained what observers have called constitutional dynamite and the newspapers described as ‘Britannia waives the rules.’ Ministers have alternatively called it ‘his does break international law in a specific and limited way’ or justified it as a reaction to a material breach by the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol. A detailed provision authorising Ministers (possibly with consent of Parliament) to breach international law and preventing access to the courts is unprecedented. The three Research Centres of the Faculty of Law have joined forces to analyse three aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill in a rapid response seminar. Experts on EU law, international law and public law will jointly discuss different aspects of the introduction, passage and potential consequences of the Bill. While the content of the Bill and the rules governing the internal market are equally controversial, these will be discussed in detail in November during an academic CELS seminar. The rapid response given by members of the three research centres is designed to bring different legal perspectives together and provide expert opinions on this new legislation from diverse points of view. It will allow enough time for an online Q&A, so please submit your questions through the chat. Welcome – UK Internal Market Bill Rapid Response Seminar (5 min) Professor Mark Elliot (for the Faculty of Law) Professor Alison Young (for the Centre for Public Law) Professor Catherine Barnard (for CELS) Dr Lorand Bartels (for the LCIL) Panel 1 – The Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement Act (Special status of EU law, international law in UK domestic law, why are state aid and customs checks a problem for the UK internal market?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Gehring Dr Bartels– International law Professor Barnard – EU law Dr Steinfeld – Public law Panel 2 – The breach of an international treaty, the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament (Is there a breach, does it matter, does the Ministerial Code prevent it, why are the devolved administrations concerned?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Hinarejos Dr Bartels – International law Dr Gehring – EU law Professor Young – Public law Panel 3 – Consequences of breaches in international law, reactions by the EU, ongoing trade negotiations and dispute settlement (Analysis of the statements by the Cabinet Office and the EU Commission and EU Parliament, US politicians?) (25 min) Chair: Professor Barnard Dr Bartels – International Law Professor Armstrong – EU Law Professor Young – Public law Questions and Answers (30 min) This entry provides an audio source.
The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) warmly invite you to an online Rapid Response Seminar on the UK Internal Market Bill. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21 was introduced on 9 September 2020 and contained what observers have called constitutional dynamite and the newspapers described as ‘Britannia waives the rules.’ Ministers have alternatively called it ‘his does break international law in a specific and limited way’ or justified it as a reaction to a material breach by the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol. A detailed provision authorising Ministers (possibly with consent of Parliament) to breach international law and preventing access to the courts is unprecedented. The three Research Centres of the Faculty of Law have joined forces to analyse three aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill in a rapid response seminar. Experts on EU law, international law and public law will jointly discuss different aspects of the introduction, passage and potential consequences of the Bill. While the content of the Bill and the rules governing the internal market are equally controversial, these will be discussed in detail in November during an academic CELS seminar. The rapid response given by members of the three research centres is designed to bring different legal perspectives together and provide expert opinions on this new legislation from diverse points of view. It will allow enough time for an online Q&A, so please submit your questions through the chat. Welcome – UK Internal Market Bill Rapid Response Seminar (5 min) Professor Mark Elliot (for the Faculty of Law) Professor Alison Young (for the Centre for Public Law) Professor Catherine Barnard (for CELS) Dr Lorand Bartels (for the LCIL) Panel 1 – The Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement Act (Special status of EU law, international law in UK domestic law, why are state aid and customs checks a problem for the UK internal market?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Gehring Dr Bartels– International law Professor Barnard – EU law Dr Steinfeld – Public law Panel 2 – The breach of an international treaty, the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament (Is there a breach, does it matter, does the Ministerial Code prevent it, why are the devolved administrations concerned?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Hinarejos Dr Bartels – International law Dr Gehring – EU law Professor Young – Public law Panel 3 – Consequences of breaches in international law, reactions by the EU, ongoing trade negotiations and dispute settlement (Analysis of the statements by the Cabinet Office and the EU Commission and EU Parliament, US politicians?) (25 min) Chair: Professor Barnard Dr Bartels – International Law Professor Armstrong – EU Law Professor Young – Public law Questions and Answers (30 min)
MPs want the Online Harms Bill to be tightened to take in “hateful speech” – yet the murder of David Amess appears to have had nothing to do with social media. Are they trying to insulate themselves from criticism. Special guest, news and policy blogger David Allen Green, joins us to look at the fallout from David Amess's killing, plus the confirmation that, yes, the UK government signed the Withdrawal Agreement always intending to break it. “Just because extremists are on social media, it doesn't mean that social media is the reason they're extremists” - Alex Andreou “It's strange that MPs are demanding the end of anonymity online when they're so deft at using ‘off the record' to get messages into the media.” – David Allen Green “It's always fun to see the ones who brought you ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE bringing up Angela Rayner's ‘scum' comments.” – Dorian Lynskey “This is a betrayal of the central argument that got the Government elected – and everyone just shrugs?” – Alex Andreou “Think how different things would be if we'd had the wit to call the EU the Winston Churchill Memorial Organisation…” – David Allen Green www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Presented by Dorian Lynskey with Ros Taylor and Alex Andreou. Produced by Andrew Harrison. Assistant producers: Jacob Archbold and Jelena Sofronijevic. Audio production by Alex Rees. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It's been a rocky year for Northern Ireland politics. Against a backdrop of worsening relationships, the Executive has had to cope with the pandemic, the protocol and the legacy of three years without Ministers. The future of the Northern Ireland protocol hangs in the balance. The EU response to the UK's proposals for major changes to the Withdrawal Agreement will be the start of an intense period of negotiations. The stakes are high with the UK governments threat to take unilateral measures on the protocol looms large, alongside the DUP's threat to bring down the Northern Ireland Assembly. Deal or no deal, the Northern Ireland Assembly is heading for an election in May 2022, if not before. This podcast will explore the view from Northern Ireland – can the UK and EU reach agreement before the end of the year? Will the Assembly survive until May? What are each parties' prospects? What other challenges will the Executive be facing in the next six months? To answer these questions the Institute for Government brought together an expert panel for a special IfG Live podcast. Dr Clare Rice, researcher and writer on NI politics Prof John Tonge, British and Irish politics professor at the University of Liverpool Aoife Moore, Political Correspondent for the Irish Examiner Alex Kane, Columnist and commentator Presented by Jess Sargeant, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government Audio Production by Candice McKenzie See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
With the Withdrawal Agreement, still less than two years old, relations between the newly independent Britain and the EU are already showing signs of strain. As Bible believers, we expect from prophecy that the UK and EU will not have close relations at the time of the end.
In this event, Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič presents the EU's vision for the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. He also addresses the post-Brexit challenges and opportunities which lie ahead in EU-UK relations in the context of Northern Ireland. About the Speaker: Maroš Šefčovič is Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight. He is responsible for the European Union's relations with the United Kingdom, co-chairing the EU-UK Partnership Council under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and the EU-UK Joint Committee for the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. He also leads the European Commission's work on the European Battery Alliance. From 2010-2019, Mr Šefčovič was Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Interinstitutional Relations and Administration and subsequently the Energy Union. Prior to this, he served as Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth. Mr Šefčovič previously served as a member of the Slovak diplomatic corps in Zimbabwe and Canada, as Ambassador to Israel, and as Permanent Representative to the EU. Vice-President Šefčovič holds a PhD in European Law from Comenius University, Bratislava.
With special guest, Matt Hoh who brings nearly twelve years of frontline experience with America's wars overseas with the United States Marine Corps, Department of Defense and State Department. He has been a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy since 2010. In 2009, Matthew resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan with the State Department over the American escalation of the war. Citing sources close to the Taliban, Afghanistan's Tolo News reported that the Biden administration has asked the Taliban to agree to a continued US presence in Afghanistan for three or six months past May 1st deadline agreed to 14 months ago. In a sensational presentation and wide-ranging interview and dialogue, Matthew shares his remarkably informed perspective on Afghanistan, including his suggestion that we are creating the circumstances in which the only option is violence. We discuss the concern that this too often continues to be the outcome of US foreign policy as indicated by the result of our ‘War on Terror' which has resulted in an explosion of State Department Listed Terror Groups and terrorist membership from 2001 until today. Our guest shares the depth of corruption of the government in Kabul by citing ‘Transparency International' which rates them as one of the most corrupt governments in the world and further cites the results of UN reports which claim that roughly one third of all prisoners of Afghanistan are tortured by the security forces (police, the army, and the intel services) of Afghanistan, forces that we train. A compelling body of information is presented that suggest that there is no moral justification for US Afghan foreign policy to date and in fact he details how it has been instead incredibly counterproductive. His personal experience in dealing with Taliban members provides another level of credibility. Although he is no fan of the Taliban, he knows them. Unlike the US who has a history once again of lying about our involvement in foreign policy theaters, in Afghanistan, he doubts the Taliban will renege on promises made. In fact, they have abided by the agreement the last year or more to not attack and kill US and NATO forces. “These groups they mean what they say and do what they say” The show also covers the historical context since the 1970s in Afghanistan identifying the real government types that historically provided the best and most promising material and human rights advances for women and all Afghans.
With special guest, Matt Hoh who brings nearly twelve years of frontline experience with America's wars overseas with the United States Marine Corps, Department of Defense and State Department. He has been a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy since 2010. In 2009, Matthew resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan with the State Department over the American escalation of the war. Citing sources close to the Taliban, Afghanistan's Tolo News reported that the Biden administration has asked the Taliban to agree to a continued US presence in Afghanistan for three or six months past May 1st deadline agreed to 14 months ago. In a sensational presentation and wide-ranging interview and dialogue, Matthew shares his remarkably informed perspective on Afghanistan, including his suggestion that we are creating the circumstances in which the only option is violence. We discuss the concern that this too often continues to be the outcome of US foreign policy as indicated by the result of our ‘War on Terror' which has resulted in an explosion of State Department Listed Terror Groups and terrorist membership from 2001 until today. Our guest shares the depth of corruption of the government in Kabul by citing ‘Transparency International' which rates them as one of the most corrupt governments in the world and further cites the results of UN reports which claim that roughly one third of all prisoners of Afghanistan are tortured by the security forces (police, the army, and the intel services) of Afghanistan, forces that we train. A compelling body of information is presented that suggest that there is no moral justification for US Afghan foreign policy to date and in fact he details how it has been instead incredibly counterproductive. His personal experience in dealing with Taliban members provides another level of credibility. Although he is no fan of the Taliban, he knows them. Unlike the US who has a history once again of lying about our involvement in foreign policy theaters, in Afghanistan, he doubts the Taliban will renege on promises made. In fact, they have abided by the agreement the last year or more to not attack and kill US and NATO forces. “These groups they mean what they say and do what they say” The show also covers the historical context since the 1970s in Afghanistan identifying the real government types that historically provided the best and most promising material and human rights advances for women and all Afghans.
The future of EU citizens living in the UK was one of the big sticking points of the Brexit talks. In the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement, the UK agreed to establish an Independent Monitoring Authority to oversee the protections of the rights of EU citizens living in the UK before the end of the transition period. What are the IMA’s priorities? What are its concerns? What progress has been made and what are the key challenges ahead? Five months after the IMA’s launch, and with the 30 June deadline for EU citizens to register for settled, or pre-settled, status fast approaching, the IfG was pleased to welcome the new IMA chair and members of its senior team for a wide-ranging discussion on the IMA’s vital role. We were joined by: Sir Ashley Fox, Chair of the Independent Monitoring Authority Kate Chamberlain, Chief Executive of the Independent Monitoring Authority Pam Everett, Director of Operational Delivery at the Independent Monitoring Authority Rhys Davies, General Counsel at the Independent Monitoring Authority The event was chaired by Jill Rutter, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government.
The future of EU citizens living in the UK was one of the big sticking points of the Brexit talks. In the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement, the UK agreed to establish an Independent Monitoring Authority to oversee the protections of the rights of EU citizens living in the UK before the end of the transition period.What are the IMA's priorities? What are its concerns? What progress has been made and what are the key challenges ahead?Five months after the IMA's launch, and with the 30 June deadline for EU citizens to register for settled, or pre-settled, status fast approaching, the IfG was pleased to welcome the new IMA chair and members of its senior team for a wide-ranging discussion on the IMA's vital role.Our panelSir Ashley Fox, Chair of the Independent Monitoring AuthorityKate Chamberlain, Chief Executive of the Independent Monitoring AuthorityPam Everett, Director of Operational Delivery at the Independent Monitoring AuthorityRhys Davies, General Counsel at the Independent Monitoring Authority The event was chaired by Jill Rutter, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government#IfGBrexit See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
#39: Now that the EU-UK Free Trade Agreement has been finalised, how will this impact local businesses here in South Dublin? Brexit has finally kicked into high gear and as the finer details are being ironed out, CEO of South Dublin Chamber Peter Byrne shares some insight and offers advice to help ease the transition for businesses.
The UK considers gifting surplus vaccines to Ireland; the European Commission has managed to bring Europe together in opposition to the Commission; and the latest opinion polls. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-vaccine-disaster-commission-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-seeking-to-duck-responsibility-a-1197547d-6219-4438-9d69-b76e64701802https://gript.ie/the-eu-accidentally-released-an-unredacted-version-of-the-astrazeneca-contract/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840230/Revised_Protocol_to_the_Withdrawal_Agreement.pdf
After UK Transition: Working with Chemicals - Episode 2 - BPR In this episode, we are joined by two HSE experts in Dr Nicola Gregg - Biocides Operational Policy Team Leader and Dr Pierre Cruse - International Chemicals Unit Team Leader. We discuss the changes that will have the greatest impact on businesses following the end of the UK Transition period, how to get an active substance approved in both the EU and GB and how companies can get on the GB version of Article 95. Visit our website for further information and detailed guidance on biocidal product regimes. If you have any concerns regarding UK Transition and changes to Biocide regimes, contact HSE at the earliest opportunity via biocidesenquiries@hse.gov.uk Podcast Transcription Welcome to the latest HSE Podcast with me, Mick Ord. This month, with the help of our resident experts, we'll be guiding you through the new Biocidal Products Regulations – that's BPR to you and me - and how the new regulatory framework will affect your business as we leave the EU and the transition period comes to an end. We'll be finding out what you should be doing now and will be required to do in the future under the new GB regulations and how that will affect companies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now we've left the EU, many of the functions currently being carried out by Europe will soon be transferred to Great Britain but certain EU functions have been removed and we'll be highlighting these areas and explaining what you need to do to make sure you comply with the new arrangements. Over the next half hour or so we'll be addressing many of the issues that are concerning businesses and pointing you in the right direction - so without further ado, let me introduce you to 2 people whose knowledge of the new BPR framework is second to none. Dr Nicola Gregg and Dr Pierre Cruse are both from the HSE. Nicola is team leader for Biocides Operational Policy in the HSE's Chemicals Regulation Directorate and Pierre is team leader at the HSE's International Chemicals Unit – his team is responsible for developing Government policy on biocides and also the CLP regulations – that‘s the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures. I'll start with you if I may Pierre - Will the new GB framework for Biocides be the same as the EU framework? Pierre: I think the answer is in some ways yes and some ways no. From the 1st January next year, 2021, Great Britain is going to have its own independent regulatory framework for biocidal products. It's going to reflect the current EU framework, the EU Biocidal Products Regulation, but they are going to operate independently of each other. Essentially, the rules and standards are going to be pretty much the same, but some elements to the framework won't exist, basically those bits that refer to EU processes and institutions that we'll no longer be dealing in the national system. Mick: So in what areas will it be different? Pierre: The Great Britain Biocidal Products Regulations – BPR – we call it a lift and shift of the EU's BPR. What that means essentially is that we copied it into domestic law without any policy changes. The only bits that have changed are those which wouldn't operate correctly in the new Great Britain context, as I say, the bits that refer to European Institutions, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Commission are examples of that. So for example ECHA, functions that previously sat with ECHA are now going to be transferred to Great Britain bodies, where we are still doing them, and commission decisions which used to be taken by the European Commission, they are now going to be taken by the Secretary of State with consent from Ministers in the Devolved Administrations. Mick: So what changes will have the greatest impact on businesses? Pierre: I'll just run through some of the biggest changes and impacts for businesses. Perhaps the main one is if a company wants an authorisation in both the EU and Great Britain after the end of the transition period, they'll need to apply separately to both the EU through ECHA and Great Britain. That also means that future European active substance approvals and product authorisations, won't be valid in Great Britain and vice versa. A similar thing applies to active substance approval. If you want an active substance approval in Great Britain at the end of the transitional period, you need to apply separately from any application you may be making in the EU. The other thing is that authorisation processes for biocidal products that used to apply across European member states, won't apply any more to Great Britain. That means there'll be no more mutual recognition of product authorisations between the EU and Great Britain. EU Union authorisations won't be valid in Great Britain after the end of the transition period and also you won't be able to use a simplified authorisation that you had in European Union to put a product on the market in Great Britain after the transition period either. Another key thing that businesses need to be aware of is that HSE won't be using ECHA's IT tools, the main one being the register of biocidal products R4BP3 after the end of the transition period. And we won't have access to ECHA's databases anymore and what that means is that applications for biocidal product authorisations have to be sent directly to HSE, not using R4BP3 and using the HSE application forms that we're going to put in place. The other thing related to this is that for active substances and products to be supported in Great Britain – if you want to make an application, all the relevant data will need to be resubmitted to HSE, even if you've previously submitted it to ECHA. There are transitional arrangements in the legislation that will tell you exactly when you need to do this and we'll explain that later in this Podcast. Mick: Thanks Pierre. Over to Nicola then. When will the new application forms and process details be live on the HSE website Nicola and will they be different to the old forms? Nicola: Well we are completely rewriting all of the information on our website including the application forms and all of this will be published by the 1st of January. Application forms and data will be submitted to HSE, not via R4BP as Pierre has just said but instead by HSE's upload link and this is a secure, cloud-based platform for sharing files. Because of the lift and shift that Pierre has also mentioned, the information required is pretty much the same as companies are used to and the data requirements are also the same. Mick: Will Great Britain have its own review programme? Nicola: Yes, after the first of January, 2021 of course, GB will be responsible for taking our own decisions on active substance approvals at our own national level and because of this, we will establish our own review programme of existing active substances. It's important to note that Article 89 of both the EU BPR and the new GB BPR will continue to apply. This means that as happens now, products containing active substances which are within the scope of the GB review programme can continue to be made available on the GB market while those active substances in the products are still under the review. Other rules for participation and withdrawal from the review programme will also continue to be similar to what people are used to under the EU review programme such as things like taking over role of participant. Another issue worth pointing out here is that the priorities and the timelines of the review programme, in the GB review programme, have not yet been determined and we won't be in a position to make those determinations until we know what the total support of active substances within GB actually is. Mick: Thanks for that Nicola. Well, after the transition period HSE will no longer have access to the ECHA databases. What are the implications for businesses here in the UK? Nicola: That's correct. After the 1st January, 2021 GB will not be permitted to access confidential information held by ECHA. This means that any data or information that companies previously submitted via these processes will no longer be available to us here in HSE for us to refer to, so the data will need to be resubmitted to us so that we can continue operating our own national regulatory regime. There are deadlines for resubmission of the data and these are set out on our new GB BPR transitional arrangements and these are legally binding. Now, HSE appreciates that the requirement for applicants to resubmit their data packages may result in an increased cost to businesses and so we are not going to charge for the work that's necessary in the resubmitting of the data and I am talking about just the actual resubmitting and all that's entailed around that, not the eventual evaluation of the data by us. Mick: Will the data required by the HSE be the same as that required by ECHA? Nicola: Yes it will. The technical data requirements which must be addressed to support both the approval of an active substance and the authorisation of a biocidal product under a GB regime, will be the same as those specified under the EU regime. Mick: What's the situation for companies which already hold the biocidal product authorisation in the UK under EU BPR – will that still be legal in the UK after the transition period? Pierre: Yes it will. Any biocidal product authorisations and also any active substance approvals that were in place before 1st January, will remain valid in Great Britain all the way through to their expiry date whatever that was. However, there are a couple of additional requirements which authorisation holders for biocidal products need to be aware of. The first is that they need to be established in the UK within a year of the end of the transition period that's by the 31st of December 2022 to continue holding that authorisation and the second is that they need to obtain active substances from suppliers on the GB Article 95 list. There are also situations where they may have to resubmit the data supporting their products and some examples of this are if they applied for a change to that product or if they are renewing a product or if HSE needs the data. For example we might need it if we want that to support a “same” biocidal application. Mick: And what about companies who have submitted a biocidal products application to the HSE and are still awaiting authorisation on 31st December this year? Do they need to do anything? Pierre: Yes they do. As Nicola explained earlier, they'll need to resubmit their application including all the necessary supporting information to HSE. And also, an important point any company in this situation needs to be aware of is, if they are relying on letters of access to data which is owned by someone else, they also have to make sure that the data owner resubmits their data dossier to HSE and the reason for this is simply that we also need this information to evaluate their application. There are two deadlines that people need to be aware of for resubmitting applications and data. The first is the 31st March, 2021 which is 90 days after the end of the transition period and that applies if the UK had been the lead or reference member state for their application under the EU BPR. The second is 29th June, 2021 if the UK had not been the lead or reference member state and that's 180 days after the end of the transition period. Mick: Similarly, Pierre, what about companies who are awaiting a BPR approval of an active substance, what do they need to do? Pierre: The same basically applies. They need to resubmit their applications and data to HSE with the same deadlines, so 31st March, 2021 if the UK had been the lead or Evaluating Competent Authority for that active substance, or 29th June, 2021 if the UK had not been the lead. It's less often the case for active substances if an applicant is relying on letters of access to data owned by someone else. The same is true for products, the data owner needs to submit their data by the same date, so we can use it in the evaluation. Mick: Nicola, a GB version of the Article 95 list is being created. How do companies get on this list? Nicola: A GB version of the Article 95 list will be established after the 1st January, 2021 and it will be operating in the same way as the current EU list. Now businesses don't need to do anything to get on the GB list in January, but there are requirements for them to stay on the list. Businesses already on the EU list will, on the 1st January be automatically included in GB's list. However, to stay on that list, businesses will need to submit supporting information to us here at the Health and Safety Executive. This is the same information as was submitted to ECHA the European Chemicals Agency. So for example it might have been an active substance dossier or a letter of access or even a mixture of both of those. If a company is submitting a letter of access, the data owner also needs to submit the dossier and data by the same date as Pierre has already outlined previously. There's another requirement as well. Businesses also have to ensure they are established in the UK, so these requirements, both to be established in the UK and to submit the data and the dossier, have to be met within two years of the end of the transitional period. So a much longer deadline than the deadlines Pierre has just mentioned. Mick: So Pierre, the new GB framework applies only to GB so how does a company get a biocidal product authorised in Northern Ireland? Pierre: I think to explain this I first need to give a bit of background to what's happened in relation to Northern Ireland and why it's different to what's happening in Great Britain. So to explain this, the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU that was signed when the UK left the EU included an agreement known as the Northern Ireland Protocol. This was designed as a practical solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, but it also ensured that the UK, including Northern Ireland, could leave the EU as a whole. The Northern Ireland Protocol included a number of special provisions which apply only in Northern Ireland from 1st January, 2021 and not the rest of the UK. And it's worth mentioning here that the Northern Ireland Protocol isn't a permanent arrangement. It was designed to solve a particular set of problems and it can only do this if it has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, so it's in place for an initial four years until 2024 and then there'll be a vote to determine whether the main provisions will continue to apply, but until then it applies until the end of the transition period. So one of the main provisions in the Northern Ireland Protocol is that unlike Great Britain, Northern Ireland is going to continue operating under certain specified pieces of European Union law and one of the pieces that's listed in the Protocol is the EU Biocidal Products Regulation. So EU BPR will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. This means that a company, if it wants an authorisation in Northern Ireland, will apply in a similar way to how it does to a European member state. But instead it will apply to the Northern Ireland Competent Authority. The Northern Ireland Competent Authority is HSE Northern Ireland. However, in practice HSE is going to be supporting HSE Northern Ireland in this role. This means, in fact, you'll submit your application to HSE and we'll evaluate it on behalf of HSE Northern Ireland. At the moment, the exact process for applying to Northern Ireland for example which IT system you have to use, is still being confirmed and we will publish information and let people know the answer to this as soon as we know it. Under the Protocol, Northern Ireland acts a bit like a European member state in some respects, but it doesn't have all the rights of a European member state. For Biocides, an example is, that it can't act as a reference or lead member state on behalf of other European member states for biocidal products. So what this means is if you have an authorisation which was granted by Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Competent Authority, this can't be mutually recognised in other parts of the EU. So if a company wants to market a product only in Northern Ireland, then it needs to specifically apply to the Northern Ireland Competent Authority. Another thing that companies need to be aware of is the requirements on where they need to be established to have an authorisation for Northern Ireland. So if companies are operating under EU BPR, they'll probably be aware that it says that authorisation holders need to be established in the European Union and under the Northern Ireland Protocol, this is extended to cover Northern Ireland so, if you want an authorisation in Northern Ireland, you have to be established in either Northern Ireland or another country in the European Union. An important thing to note about this is that a company only established in Great Britain, can't hold an authorisation in Northern Ireland under these arrangements. So companies supplying to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, need to make sure that they comply with this requirement and it applies immediately after the transition period ends, there's no transitional arrangement for that. So it's an important thing to note if you're supplying to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland companies may also wish to check any Great Britain suppliers that they have who are supplying biocidal products to them are aware of this requirement and take the relevant steps to comply with it. It's worth noting as well that companies which are established in Northern Ireland can also apply for authorisations in Great Britain. The requirement in Great Britain is that you have to be established in the UK and that includes Northern Ireland, it's just that it doesn't work the other way so that if you are in Great Britain only, you can't have an authorisation in Northern Ireland unless you are also established in Northern Ireland or the European Union. That's quite complex, but I hope that I've said enough to explain it for companies who are affected by this. Mick: I'm sure you have. Does that mean though that Northern Ireland cannot be the lead for active substance approvals either? Pierre: Yes, that's right but approvals are granted in the EU, will be valid in Northern Ireland. Essentially, Northern Ireland would be still part of the EU system and decisions taken in the EU about active substances will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Mick: Can authorisations granted in Northern Ireland, either in Northern Ireland only or via a Union or Mutual Recognition Application, be mutually recognised by Great Britain? Pierre: No they can't, not as such. However, one of the special provisions in the Northern Ireland Protocol is that it makes clear that nothing will prevent businesses in Northern Ireland enjoying what it calls ‘unfettered access' to the rest of the UK market and the Government has committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses have this unfettered access to Great Britain. What it means is essentially that there's going to be no declarations, tariffs, new regulatory checks or customs checks or additional approvals for Northern Ireland businesses who wish to place goods on the Great Britain market. Mick: So unfettered access removes the barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Does this mean that as long as a product is authorized in Northern Ireland under the EU BPR, it can be freely supplied in Great Britain? Nicola: Yes, but not entirely. There's a very small number of goods, including biocides, which can pose a particularly high risk to consumers, to humans, to animals and the environment and they are subject to stricter regulation. We are calling these highly regulated goods, so to protect consumers across the UK, if you are a Northern Ireland business placing highly regulated goods on the GB market, you must first provide some basic information to the GB authorities. However, as Pierre has just said, you won't need any additional approval or authorisation. So for biocides, we've put this into practice through a notification system. Under this notification system, companies will notify HSE of their intention to supply a product on the GB market and as part of this notification system, they have to provide HSE with the same information that they supplied to an EU member state or to the Northern Ireland Competent Authority in support of their original application. They also must submit a copy of their Northern Ireland authorisation. It might not be a full authorisation, it might be that Northern Ireland granted some other permit. Once the information has been submitted, the product may be made available on the market in Great Britain after 90 days so there is a lag period. Now there is an exception - if HSE raises any objections which we might do only on very limited grounds – so for example we might identify that the product is unsafe or it's not sufficiently effective. If HSE does identify any concerns, then we may request additional information and if this happens, the 90 day period will be suspended for up to another 90 days and during those extra 90 days, that allows companies time to submit further information to HSE and once HSE has got that extra information, there's then another 90 day period for HSE to consider that extra information. However, the product does not have to be authorised again in GB and there will be no charge. Now there are conditions within the notifications system, and this is really important. Companies - if they are applying for unfettered access - have to be established in Northern Ireland. The active substance must be approved in GB and the active substance source in the product, must be on the GB Article 95 list. Mick: If anyone is worried about the various timescales and deadlines we've been referring to – what should they do - who should they contact? Nicola: Well, the timescales and deadlines are all on our website, but if any company is concerned that they cannot meet those deadlines, we would encourage them to contact us at the earliest opportunity and they can do this via our enquiries email that's: biocidesenquiries@hse.gov.uk Mick: We'll be giving that email out again before the end of this Podcast. Dr. Nicola Gregg and Dr. Pierre Cruse – thanks a lot for joining us. HGHSGhhhh So there you go. Everything you wanted to know about Biocides Product Regulation but were afraid to ask. And certainly it's important that you DO ask if there are elements you don't understand about the changes. You can email us at biocidesenquiries@hse.gov.uk and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. You can also, as I've mentioned many times before in this podcast series, log onto the website – www.hse.gov.uk/brexit for a comprehensive breakdown in written form about what we've been discussing today and over the previous episodes. Remember as well to subscribe to our ebulletin service so you can stay in touch with updates and developments as they affect the sector in which your business is involved. Just pop your email into the subscription box you'll find on the pages of the HSE website. A huge thanks you Dr Nicola Gregg and Dr Pierre Cruse our guest experts today. Stay subscribed to the podcast, take care and you'll be hearing from us again very soon. Thanks for listening.
In this "Brexit Musings" episode, Gavin Jones and Vinciane Rysselink from Osborne Clarke – the international law firm, discuss Brexit and how that impacts UK/EU nationals and US firms with UK/EU offices. Brexit is the "undoing" of 40 years of free-trade and freedom of movement and is scheduled to come into effect from January 1st 2021. Focusing on immigration/mobility, they discuss what can and should UK/EU nationals do now to secure their residence – and why that is important. They look at what the practical impact of Brexit means to servicing clients across the region and also what should employees/employers be looking to prepare for in the months to come.Gavin Jones, Head of Immigration at OSBORNE CLARKE, has over 20 years' experience advising on both business and personal immigration issues. He leads the firm's immigration practice and has a well-regarded reputation in the industry. His legal expertise comprises all areas of UK business immigration acting for multi-nationals through to start-up companies and he has advised on the full extent of entry clearance applications, as well as personal applications for UK residency and nationality, settlements and citizenship and student applications.Gavin has a particular specialism for inward investment and helping international companies set up in the UK and has helped a number of household names with their immigration strategic planning as they set up and grew.Gavin worked previously as Special Counsel at Taylor Wessing (where he was ranked by legal directories as a leading individual) and then as a Senior Manager at Fragomen before joining Blake Lapthorn to build and lead its immigration practice. Gavin is also a member of the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association and has been a contributing editor for Immigration for The Investors Guide to the UK.Vinciane Rysselinck is a Senior Counsel at OSBORNE CLARKE in Brussels. She is recognised as a ‘very efficient and commercial' lawyer by Legal 500. She specialises in the labour implications of company takeovers and business downsizings, as well as cross-border employment and social security matters. Her expertise is particularly valued by Belgian, US and Indian clients in the real estate, retail and tech, media and comms sectors.Vinciane also assists companies with various kinds of labour disputes before the Belgian labour courts, and with senior executive appointments and dismissals. In that regard, she regularly coordinates cross-service and multi-jurisdictional projects.She was one of the founding team members of Osborne Clarke Belgium in 2013. She is also a member of the European Employment Lawyers' Association and the Belgian Employment Lawyers' Association.
With the Brexit transition period quickly coming to an end, the United Kingdom and EU Member States are in a race against time to finalize and start implementing their withdrawal agreement plans on citizens’ rights. But during what should have been a critical planning period, the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically reoriented priorities and brought additional strains for both governments as well as EU nationals in the United Kingdom and UK nationals in the European Union. This MPI Europe webinar explores how governments’ withdrawal agreement implementation plans have been affected by COVID-19, and the potential implications on citizens’ rights at the end of the transition period and beyond. Experts including, MPI's Meghan Benton and Aliyyah Ahad, Marina Fernandez from the University of Oxford, Nastasja Fuxa from the European Commission, UK Citizens Rights' Deputy DirectorAndy Heath, Identity Malta Agency CEO Anton Sevasta, and Betty Sieperda and Yoram Vanmaekelbergh from the Netherlands Government, tackle the following questions in their conversation: Which populations are most at risk of being left behind at the intersection between Brexit and the pandemic? What contingency measures could mitigate these vulnerabilities and keep implementation timelines on track? How can governments do smart outreach to groups that may have more immediate health and economic concerns, or are increasingly isolated either at home or overseas? How can governments in the European Union capitalize on the lessons from past regularization programs to get a jump start on implementing the withdrawal agreement before January 2021? And what actions and investments are needed for the post-registration period, e.g. the monitoring of UK and EU nationals’ ability to access rights as stipulated under the withdrawal agreement?
“If carefully negotiated terms are not honoured and laws can be ‘legally' broken, on what foundations does our democracy stand?” The Internal Market Bill would ride roughshod over the Withdrawal Agreement signed with the EU last year – and potentially put peace in Northern Ireland at at risk. It's a gamble, by a gambling man, who doesn't seem to know the odds and is unclear for which team he is batting.
This episode of the "EACCNY Brexit Musings" series explores the impact of the Northern Irish Protocol on the Withdrawal Agreement and delves deeper into the various outcomes and consequences of Brexit. Our speaker today is Lucinda Creighton, CEO of Vulcan Consulting; who is accompanied by her colleague, Scott McCulloch.Lucinda Creighton is CEO of Vulcan Consulting Ltd and is a former Irish Minister for European Affairs and Member of the Irish Parliament. As Minister for European Affairs she represented Ireland in key negotiations on Ireland's EU/IMF bailout, leading to a reduction in interest rates and the extension of Ireland's repayment schedules. She has extensive knowledge of the EU bureaucratic infrastructure and regulatory systems. As CEO of Vulcan Consulting, she works closely with CEOs and senior management teams to assist them in understanding and navigating the political, policy and decision-making environment in Europe, Ireland and across the E.U. She has an extensive network across Europe having also previously served as Vice President of the European People's Party (EPP).Scott McCulloch is a Senior Account Executive at Vulcan Consulting. He positions clients operating in the security and digital sectors on EU regulatory and governmental affairs. Before joining Vulcan Consulting, Scott worked for the public affairs team of a global public relations firm in Brussels where he gained experience monitoring EU political and regulatory developments in digital and financial services policy. He has practical institutional experience having worked as a parliamentary assistant for a prominent Scottish MEP. Before embarking on a career in public affairs Scott worked as a litigation lawyer in Scotland.
Fans of the UK's Withdrawal Agreement seem fewer and further between by the day, and this week former leader of the Conservative Party Sir Iain Duncan Smith joins Christopher "Chopper" Hope to discuss why he certainly isn't one of them. In fact, he suggests we rip the whole thing up. Also on the show: CEO of Best for Britain, Naomi Smith tells Chris why she's worried about the combined impact of a no-deal and the coronavirus crisis, and social media star Michael Spicer, AKA 'The Room Next Door Man', admits that this crop of MPs makes lampooning politicians easy.For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/chopper |Listen to The Trump Card: https://www.playpodca.st/trump |Email: chopperspolitics@telegraph.co.uk |Twitter: @chopperspodcast |
The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is of immense political and economic significance. But it also amounts to a legal transformation both internally within the UK and externally in the UK's relationship with the EU and other countries. A complex legal ecosystem is emerging that draws upon EU law, international law, UK and devolved law in fashioning a set of rules and principles that manage the phenomenon of Brexit. The aim of this webinar is to introduce the salient and novel features of this body of law that we term “EU Relations Law”. Chair: Professor Kenneth Armstrong - University of Cambridge Speaker 1: Jack Williams – Monckton Chambers: 'What is EU Relations Law?' Speaker 2: George Peretz QC - Monckton Chambers: 'Key Aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement and Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland' Speaker 3: Professor Alison Young - University of Cambridge: 'Key Aspects of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020' Speaker 4: Professor Kenneth Armstrong – University of Cambridge: 'The Future Relationship – What Type of Agreement (if any?)' For more details and other events see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series This entry provides an audio-only item for iTunes.
In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb analyse the Internal Market Bill currently pending before the UK Parliament, which the UK government's own legal officers admit breaches international law by reneging on parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union and the Northern Ireland Protocol thereto that the UK had freely entered into less than a year ago. The team discuss why the UK government has put this Bill forward, how it is fairly unique for a state to admit to breaking international law before actually doing so, and why no international legal argument would work to justify this course of action. The team also discuss whether the concept of the rule of law should be bifurcated between the domestic and the international spheres, and what the role of governmental legal advisors should be in such situations.
The EU passes the withdrawal agreement, do you think this paves the way for a brighter future?
In another of the CELS occasional podcast documentary series we speak to three of our academics from the University of Cambridge about the reputation of the UK now following three years of ups and downs in its #Brexit negotiations with the EU. We ask Albertina Albors-Llorens, Professor of European Union Law; Catherine Barnard Professor of EU and Employment Law, Director of CELS and Dr Markus Gehring who teaches European Union and International Law at the Faculty of Law, if the EU is misunderstood, whether or not those misunderstandings are the result of media bias, and if the other 27 European Union members will now trust the UK in future trade negotiations. In this compelling documentary podcast you might be surprised to hear that all three of our speakers remain optimistic about the UK’s reputation in the longer term, whether or not the UK does actually #Brexit the EU at the end of 2020 under the terms of the Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new Withdrawal Agreement which did pass through parliament with a majority of 30 but which has not yet had its second reading, and will not be voted on again until after the General Election in December should Johnson and his government stay in power. Professors Albors-Llorens and Barnard and Dr Gehring, point out that three years on there is now much more understanding of the UK’s relationship with the EU, which mitigates attempts to portray it as an institution that has taken control away from UK citizens, as happened in the prelude to the June 2016 Referendum. But that the media still divides right left on how it headlines the various #Brexit negotiations, votes in Parliament, and subsequent court battles, sometimes referring to Remain supporting MPs as “traitors” or “enemies of the people” and as the Benn Act,which stopped Johnson and his government taking the UK out of the EU on the 31st October 2019 with a no-deal Brexit, as the “surrender Bill”. The terms of the new Johnson Agreement have raised concerns, particularly on environmental protections and workers’ rights, but as Dr Gehring points out “co-operation with our EU neighbours” will remain important. Professor Barnard says that while there has been criticism of the media, it now has many more fact checkers than before. Professor Albors-Llorens says that as someone who came to the UK from Spain she has always loved this Country and remains an optimist about its future. Political rivalries and alignments have never been so bad tempered or fractured making the outcome of the General Election on December 12th 2019 hard to call, even by the pollsters, but the UK’s links with the EU have historically largely been positive and that bodes well for future relationships going forward, when all the 27 EU countries will be able to vote on future trade deals or block them. However, our three academics raise concerns about future court battles here and in Europe as the terms of trade are worked out. Key quotes: Professor Albors-Llorens: "The EU has not been transparent enough about some of its processes and I think that has been a problem. It’s quite sad that following the Referendum people seem to be much more informed about EU law than they were before because people are now better informed. There has been a lack of engagement and a lack of transparency and I think the EU also recognises that is a problem." Professor Barnard: "I think it is quite common for national governments to claim credit for the good things that come out of the EU and to blame the EU for the bad things that they know they have to implement. There’s been a failure to communication on the EU’s side but also a failure to communicate on the UK’s side. There is a misunderstanding about the role of the ECJ (European Court of Justice) but it is a referee and in any sport competition you need a referee to know the rules of the game are being complied with. That has been to the UK’s benefit." Dr Gehring: "It is much harder for the media to just splash out headlines that now the general population will understand as completely false. I have not read in the media over the past 12 months that there are faceless bureaucrats’ making rules for all of Britain when that used to be a staple in the British media. There is now much more differentiation and that is quite a positive development. But we are not by and large reading the full reports, however fact checking has become more common in the British media."
The former Taoiseach discusses the Withdrawal Agreement with Eamon. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/the-stand-with-eamon-dunphy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
He backed the 30-day timescale suggested by German leader Angela Merkel on Wednesday for the UK to come forward with its proposals but warned the Irish backstop - the major stumbling block - was indispensable.
With Theresa May set to step down as Prime Minister this week after failing to pass her Withdrawal Agreement, edie's new podcast mini-series explores the impact of Brexit on key areas of the UK's green economy. Up next: Low-carbon transport.
With MPs failing to agree on a Withdrawal Agreement ahead of the 29 March deadline, the UK's green economy is continuing to ask questions about when and how we will exit the EU, and what impact this will have on business. edie has therefore launched a new series of podcast episodes exploring what Brexit will really mean for key environmental areas, in under 15 minutes.
It was a great pleasure to get the opportunity to speak to the Minister of State for European Affairs Helen McEntee in Government Buildings. Minister McEntee has had a meteoric rise in Irish politics since being elected a Fine Gael TD in 2013. Minister McEntee has held the European Affairs portfolio since 2017 a big part of which placed her at the center of the EU negotiations around the Withdrawal Agreement. In this episode, Minister McEntee reflects on her early days in politics, her thoughts on women in politics, being both European and Irish, the EU, her future, and of course, Brexit.
Theresa May is going back to Brussels with a unicorn. Well, not quite. But she is going to ask the EU to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement. We speak to our Political Editor Ross Kempsell, Conservative MP Dr Phillip Lee, CEO of Shout Out UK Matteo Bergamini, Former Chief of Staff for Dominic Raab Nick de Bois and Sun on Sunday Political Editor David Wooding to work out whether she has a chance See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?
The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?
Mujtaba Rahman, Managing Director and Practice Head, Europe at the Eurasia Group, talks to Paul Adamson about the likelihood of Article 50 being extended to enable a deal to be struck on the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU27.
Baroness Ruth Deech, a lawyer, who has often voiced her concerns about the UK's membership of the EU.
In this Exclusive B4B podcast David Jones the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, tells listeners why he now thinks Theresa May, the Prime Minister, should ditch her failed Withdrawal Agreement and begin negotiations with the EU for a CETA (The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) free-trade agreement similar to the one it recently signed with Canada.
On 16 November 2018 the SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, held a conference at Peterhouse College in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy. While politicians in Westminster were arguing about the merits of Theresa May, the Prime Minister's draft Withdrawal Agreement simultaneously delegates to the conference gave their verdict on it. They had actually read the 585 pages of what has been termed the “divorce” bill and the accompanying shorter seven page political agreement which paves the way for our future trade deals. Meanwhile some politicians were admittedly having difficulty getting to grips with it.In this special 57 minute audio podcast three of the Conference guest speakers give their views on the Withdrawal Agreement.All three took issue with the views expressed in the mainstream media that the Agreement was a dogs' breakfast. They argue that it is a very well-crafted and thought through legal document and that the EU and UK negotiating teams' have shown considerable skill in drafting it.Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge said that both the EU and UK negotiators need to be congratulated on it. But he expressed concerns about Citizens rights.Deakin key quote: “It is a very soft form of Brexit in which we continue to abide by many standards in terms of labour law and the environment and many people like that. But people who supported Brexit wanted to use it as an opportunity to deregulate these standards, they would be unhappy. People who are concerned about citizens' rights will also be unhappy, because it has some protections for EU citizens here and those UK citizens living in mainland Europe, but it doesn't go far enough in many respects, it doesn't give UK citizens living in mainland Europe the right to live and work outside the EU host state they have been living within. We're under protecting EU Citizens abroad.”Deakin gives a powerful summary of how he thinks the Agreement will play out for the UK in the longer term in terms of the devolved assemblies, and its economic impact.“Brexit here as elsewhere puts enormous pressure on our existing constitutional arrangements and begins to call into question the legitimacy of the way in which Brexit has been conducted because significant voices such as the devolved administrations would argue they have been left out.“It is legally impressive to have produced a text of this nature so quickly. People drafting it on both the EU and British side deserve to be congratulated. We do need law to play a role here. Without the enormous effort to put into legal terms this big political shift we would be facing a much more chaotic and difficult situation. The deal that has been offered by the EU is infinitely preferable to no-deal; no-deal will not just put at risk our economy but many aspects of social provision including things as basic as the free circulation of medicines and the free circulation of some goods and no-deal could easily lead to food shortages and the mothballing of other aspects of our industrial capacity.“But on the down side it doesn't sufficiently protect the rights of UK citizens living on the mainland and our environmental and labour rights because the non-regression clause only applies up to the end of the transition period. It could have provided for a more dynamic forward looking alignment of UK law with those standards. The customs territory has been designed as a function of the need to avoid a hard border in NI and this is understandable but it underplays the degree to which we need a customs union within the EU.”He went on to say that the Agreement was a compromise: “It's the compromise and that
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
