Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0002
Emily Jones
This chapter analyses the politics of the Brexit negotiations and shows how the UK government’s failure to manage the fraught domestic politics posed a major constraint and challenge to the negotiations. Under UK Prime Minister Theresa May, the UK government struggled to put forward coherent negotiating proposals, hamstrung by deep splits within the UK Cabinet and the Conservative Party. After two years of negotiations, in November of 2018, the UK and EU reached an agreement, only to see it resoundingly rejected by UK Parliament three times. The UK was then plunged into a constitutional crisis, and Prime Minister May stepped down. Boris Johnson, May’s successor, took a more hard-line approach. He took extreme measures, including suspending the UK Parliament, a move that was ruled illegal by the UK Supreme Court. Activist backbench MPs and a series of court cases ruled out a no-deal exit and helped generate an agreement between the Johnson government and the EU, but it was not ratified until after a snap general election in December of 2019 delivered a resounding victory for the Conservatives. The UK duly left the EU on January 31, 2020, with a Withdrawal Agreement in place.
{"title":"The Negotiations","authors":"Emily Jones","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses the politics of the Brexit negotiations and shows how the UK government’s failure to manage the fraught domestic politics posed a major constraint and challenge to the negotiations. Under UK Prime Minister Theresa May, the UK government struggled to put forward coherent negotiating proposals, hamstrung by deep splits within the UK Cabinet and the Conservative Party. After two years of negotiations, in November of 2018, the UK and EU reached an agreement, only to see it resoundingly rejected by UK Parliament three times. The UK was then plunged into a constitutional crisis, and Prime Minister May stepped down. Boris Johnson, May’s successor, took a more hard-line approach. He took extreme measures, including suspending the UK Parliament, a move that was ruled illegal by the UK Supreme Court. Activist backbench MPs and a series of court cases ruled out a no-deal exit and helped generate an agreement between the Johnson government and the EU, but it was not ratified until after a snap general election in December of 2019 delivered a resounding victory for the Conservatives. The UK duly left the EU on January 31, 2020, with a Withdrawal Agreement in place.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133772437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0004
P. Craig
This chapter assesses the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement by clarifying the means by which the UK and the EU gave effect to the exit treaty. It begins by looking at the ratification and legal implementation from the UK legal perspective. The UK is a dualist country as regards the relation between treaties and UK law. A treaty may therefore bind the UK at the international level, but will have no effect in UK domestic law unless and until it is ratified and incorporated into UK law via statute. The chapter sets out the foundational principles concerning dualism and explains the process through which the UK implemented the Withdrawal Agreement so as to satisfy the dualist precept. It also considers the interconnection between the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020. The chapter then examines the ratification and its legal consequences from the EU perspective.
{"title":"The Ratifications","authors":"P. Craig","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement by clarifying the means by which the UK and the EU gave effect to the exit treaty. It begins by looking at the ratification and legal implementation from the UK legal perspective. The UK is a dualist country as regards the relation between treaties and UK law. A treaty may therefore bind the UK at the international level, but will have no effect in UK domestic law unless and until it is ratified and incorporated into UK law via statute. The chapter sets out the foundational principles concerning dualism and explains the process through which the UK implemented the Withdrawal Agreement so as to satisfy the dualist precept. It also considers the interconnection between the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020. The chapter then examines the ratification and its legal consequences from the EU perspective.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"29 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125128655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0007
C. Harvey
This chapter focuses on Northern Ireland, a jurisdiction within the UK acutely affected by the nature of the Brexit debate and the process. It is a contested region that is divided along ethno-national lines and still emerging from a violent conflict. Removing Northern Ireland from the EU against its wishes will have long-term consequences that remain difficult to predict. One result is a more intense discussion of the region’s place within the UK, with Irish reunification acknowledged to be a way to return to the EU. The chapter then analyses the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement which regulates the single most controversial issue in the Brexit process: namely, the Irish border question. It looks at the difficulties connected to the fragile peace process in Northern Ireland and explains the creative solution that was ultimately agreed in the withdrawal treaty to prevent the return of a hard border in the island of Ireland through regulatory alignment, while also indicating the challenges that the Protocol creates.
{"title":"The Irish Border","authors":"C. Harvey","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on Northern Ireland, a jurisdiction within the UK acutely affected by the nature of the Brexit debate and the process. It is a contested region that is divided along ethno-national lines and still emerging from a violent conflict. Removing Northern Ireland from the EU against its wishes will have long-term consequences that remain difficult to predict. One result is a more intense discussion of the region’s place within the UK, with Irish reunification acknowledged to be a way to return to the EU. The chapter then analyses the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement which regulates the single most controversial issue in the Brexit process: namely, the Irish border question. It looks at the difficulties connected to the fragile peace process in Northern Ireland and explains the creative solution that was ultimately agreed in the withdrawal treaty to prevent the return of a hard border in the island of Ireland through regulatory alignment, while also indicating the challenges that the Protocol creates.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116763894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0005
C. Barnard, Emilija Leinarte
This chapter addresses the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement dealing with the protection of citizens’ rights. It explains the scope of application and the content of the rights afforded to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU after Brexit. The chapter also looks at the enforcement of citizens’ rights, both in the EU and the UK. While the rights of EU citizens already in the UK, and rights of UK citizens in the EU, are fairly generously protected under the WA, the mechanism for enforcement of such rights raises questions of effectiveness. Moreover, the special jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement, while a logical outcome from the perspective of EU constitutional law, will disappoint those who supported the UK government’s insistence that ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU was one of the UK’s red lines during the Article 50 TEU negotiations.
{"title":"Citizens’ Rights","authors":"C. Barnard, Emilija Leinarte","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter addresses the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement dealing with the protection of citizens’ rights. It explains the scope of application and the content of the rights afforded to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU after Brexit. The chapter also looks at the enforcement of citizens’ rights, both in the EU and the UK. While the rights of EU citizens already in the UK, and rights of UK citizens in the EU, are fairly generously protected under the WA, the mechanism for enforcement of such rights raises questions of effectiveness. Moreover, the special jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement, while a logical outcome from the perspective of EU constitutional law, will disappoint those who supported the UK government’s insistence that ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU was one of the UK’s red lines during the Article 50 TEU negotiations.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132481932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0003
F. Fabbrini, R. Schmidt
This chapter examines the extension of UK membership in the EU, discussing the law and politics of Article 50(3) TEU. It also assesses the governance implications that the postponement of Brexit had on the EU institutions, including the European Parliament (EP), the Council of the EU, and the European Commission. The UK government notified its intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 TEU on March 29, 2017. It was expected therefore that the UK would leave by March 29, 2019. However, in March of 2019, the UK government was eventually pushed to seek an extension under Article 50(3) TEU — a dynamic which was repeated twice more in April and October of 2019, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU only on January 31, 2020. The chapter maps the legal regulation of the extension of the withdrawal period, distinguishing it from the similar but different mechanisms of revocation and transition. It also analyses the practical implementation of extension in the three subsequent decisions that the European Council adopted, in agreement with the UK, during 2019.
{"title":"The Extensions","authors":"F. Fabbrini, R. Schmidt","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848356.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the extension of UK membership in the EU, discussing the law and politics of Article 50(3) TEU. It also assesses the governance implications that the postponement of Brexit had on the EU institutions, including the European Parliament (EP), the Council of the EU, and the European Commission. The UK government notified its intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 TEU on March 29, 2017. It was expected therefore that the UK would leave by March 29, 2019. However, in March of 2019, the UK government was eventually pushed to seek an extension under Article 50(3) TEU — a dynamic which was repeated twice more in April and October of 2019, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU only on January 31, 2020. The chapter maps the legal regulation of the extension of the withdrawal period, distinguishing it from the similar but different mechanisms of revocation and transition. It also analyses the practical implementation of extension in the three subsequent decisions that the European Council adopted, in agreement with the UK, during 2019.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126647494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter studies an innovative governance devise invented by the Brexit negotiators: transition — a stand-still period which will allow the UK to remain pro tempore part of the EU internal market and customs union despite being no longer a member state. On February 1, 2020, and ten months later than scheduled, the EU and the UK entered into a period of ‘transition’; a time between formal membership of the EU and the beginning of a new relationship. At one level, there is a certain taken-for-granted simplicity to the idea of managing not just an orderly exit of the UK from the EU but also the provision of continuity and certainty while the parties negotiate and decide their future relationship. But at another level, the formal terminology and indeed the metaphors used to describe this interim legal framework disclose some deeper tensions around the sequencing and organisation of the withdrawal process as well as the direction of travel of the parties. Transition was originally conceived as a bridge toward the future EU–UK relations, but the risks remain that it may turn into a bridge to nowhere — particularly if the period is not extended beyond December 31, 2020, given time-constraints for such new difficult negotiations.
{"title":"The Transition","authors":"Kenneth A. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3593480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593480","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter studies an innovative governance devise invented by the Brexit negotiators: transition — a stand-still period which will allow the UK to remain pro tempore part of the EU internal market and customs union despite being no longer a member state. On February 1, 2020, and ten months later than scheduled, the EU and the UK entered into a period of ‘transition’; a time between formal membership of the EU and the beginning of a new relationship. At one level, there is a certain taken-for-granted simplicity to the idea of managing not just an orderly exit of the UK from the EU but also the provision of continuity and certainty while the parties negotiate and decide their future relationship. But at another level, the formal terminology and indeed the metaphors used to describe this interim legal framework disclose some deeper tensions around the sequencing and organisation of the withdrawal process as well as the direction of travel of the parties. Transition was originally conceived as a bridge toward the future EU–UK relations, but the risks remain that it may turn into a bridge to nowhere — particularly if the period is not extended beyond December 31, 2020, given time-constraints for such new difficult negotiations.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133277667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter reflects on the future of the EU after Brexit — as an entity of 27 member states (EU27). In dealing with a member state that had decided to leave, the EU27 proved able to stick together and jointly defend the common interests, including of its smaller member states. However, the EU27 have faced an increasing number of crises which have profoundly challenged their unity and resolve. Indeed, the subsequent crises shattering the EU — including the euro-crisis, the migration crisis, and the rule of law crisis — and climaxing with Covid-19 have exposed deep divisions among the EU27 and brought to the surface competing visions of the project of European integration. Three alternative ideas of what the EU is and ought to be are increasingly taking shape: a first that sees the EU as a polity, which requires solidarity and a communion of efforts towards a shared destiny; a second that sees the EU as a market, designed to enhance wealth through commerce, but with as limited redistribution as possible; and a third which instead sees the EU as a vehicle to entrench state authoritarian rule, based on national identity and sovereignty claims, but with crucial transnational financial support. While these alternative visions often coexist within each state, they have increasingly become hallmarks of states, or blocs thereof, which are openly facing each other in the EU arena.
{"title":"The Future of the EU after Brexit, and Covid-19","authors":"F. Fabbrini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3604111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3604111","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reflects on the future of the EU after Brexit — as an entity of 27 member states (EU27). In dealing with a member state that had decided to leave, the EU27 proved able to stick together and jointly defend the common interests, including of its smaller member states. However, the EU27 have faced an increasing number of crises which have profoundly challenged their unity and resolve. Indeed, the subsequent crises shattering the EU — including the euro-crisis, the migration crisis, and the rule of law crisis — and climaxing with Covid-19 have exposed deep divisions among the EU27 and brought to the surface competing visions of the project of European integration. Three alternative ideas of what the EU is and ought to be are increasingly taking shape: a first that sees the EU as a polity, which requires solidarity and a communion of efforts towards a shared destiny; a second that sees the EU as a market, designed to enhance wealth through commerce, but with as limited redistribution as possible; and a third which instead sees the EU as a vehicle to entrench state authoritarian rule, based on national identity and sovereignty claims, but with crucial transnational financial support. While these alternative visions often coexist within each state, they have increasingly become hallmarks of states, or blocs thereof, which are openly facing each other in the EU arena.","PeriodicalId":383483,"journal":{"name":"The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129949493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：