Log In | Subscribe | | |

brexit

We have considered what a "soft brexit" means (here) and in this article, we look at a "hard brexit" also known as a "no deal brexit."

First, the term "brexit" is not original. It was copied from a term "grexit" which was coined to refer to the possibility that Greece, in the throes of a financial crisis, might choose to leave, or be thrown out of, the Eurozone, i.e. that part of Europe which uses the Euro as a common currency. It is, simply, a contraction of the term "British Exit." Britain is not part of the Eurozone, which means that it is, theoretically, outside the influence of the European Central Bank, but Britain is part of all other EU institutions and does, in fact, have a place at the ECB table. A "hard brexit" means that the UK leaves Britain without agreeing terms and without any firm agreement to agree terms in the future. That's the view as it is widely put but, in fact, there can be no such thing as a "hard brexit" only a non-negotiated withdrawal. The term is, actually, very misleading. The term "soft brexit" is less misleading except that it's barely a "brexit" at all.

This week, some Conservative Party MPs delivered, in sufficient number, a letter to the party's managing committee, the 1922 Committee. It expressed that they had no confidence in the Prime Minister and that the party should replace her. The timing, many have said, was a mistake, that those seeking her removal, should have waited until after the Brexit vote and attack her then, if she lost. That, it is here opined, would have defeated the purpose of this week's supposed rebellion.

CoNet Section: 

The European Union (Exit) Act, as originally drawn, defined exit day as "such day as a Minister of the Crown may be regulations appoint" but that was later amended. But even now, it's not as fixed as it appears.

Perhaps the most important question arising out of the whole withdrawal issue is this. What status will EU law have, in the UK, after Exit Day?

The UK's Treasury is not anxious to make it known that the UK is, despite the cries of various EU officials, in fact ready, willing and kind-of able to enter into bi-lateral agreements with third countries. The US Treasury, on the other hand, thinks shouting it from the rooftops is a good idea and has issued a notice regarding an agreement relating to "Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance (U.S.-UK Covered Agreement. " But.. there's a stumbling block.

BIScom Subsection: 

This is not about money laundering. It's about how the UK is de-EU-ing law and regulation ready for "exit day." The UK's draft statutory instrument called "The Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018" is an object lesson in technical documentation. It has no life of its own and can only be read alongside other UK law and Regulations. It is of extraordinary importance not because of what it does but because of what it demonstrates. This is an indication of the clerical complexity of withdrawing from the EU even when the principles, as they will in relation to the Money Laundering Directives, will remain as now.

BIScom Subsection: 

No-deal Brexit would hit south-eastern European economies hardest among EBRD regions, says the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in a surprising counter-point to the position espoused by the EU generally .

CoNet Section: 

It's incredible. The European Union has produced five Money Laundering Directives and still in some respects it is not one but two steps behind some countries that are often subject to criticism. Indeed, it is behind many of its own member states. This week, the Council of the European Union "adopted" a "regulation." Politically, the fact that a Regulation has been made is more important than what it does.

This really is a story about money laundering. Stay with us: first, it's not at all a done deal that whatever happens in Brexit, UK lawyers will lose out for any reason except sentiment. Yes, long term, international recognition may be more complex but that could well turn out to be to the advantage of English (specifically, but perhaps one or two South Wales firms might be included) lawyers as their gene pool becomes less diluted. But everyone acknowledges that there should be some kind of hedge against that risk and so large firms are putting in place measures to be, in effect, dual citizens (not legally accurate, of course). Now Theresa May, in need of a win, has done something that will both assist UK lawyers and really, really get up the nose of those Eurocrats who are trying to frustrate the will of the UK people. And there's a not-to-well hidden benefit for British businesses outside the legal sector, too.

Tata's Jaguar Land Rover has had an amazing run: it's profits have been spectacular and it has produced (admittedly having inherited some excellent work from Ford which sold the company on the cusp of it turning around) some excellent cars. But it's had to cease production of its iconic Defender Land Rover (the company says that to keep it abreast of changes in regulation was not feasible) and it's alienated some of its core - and amazingly loyal - customer base. So, as a luxury car maker which makes some extraordinarily competent vehicles that farmers and soldiers don't want (would you take a power washer to the interior of a Range Rover? Of course not) it's also made a blunder of epic proportions.

CoNet Section: 

It might take a stretch of the imagination to join the UK's departure from the EU and the wife-murdering, perhaps syphilitic, definitely unstable, ferociously misogynistic Tudor monarch who is, arguably, the UK's most famous king. But there is a certain logic and the admirably named Lord Judge has applied his considerable legal knowledge and intellect to make that connection and to rightly harry those responsible for the poor legal drafting that plagues English law and, in particular, that relating to the not-admirably named "Brexit." At the heart of his concerns are a major constitutional issue now known as "Henry VIII powers." This month, Parliament is making much of that while debating Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill.

CoNet Section: 

The scandal over contaminated eggs originating in the Netherlands raises a serious question about one of the fundamental principles of the EU: the free movement of goods. Without taking sides one way or the other, we point out why this issue may be about eggs, but its ramifications are about something far more.

Here's why it's ironic that Brussels is in Belgium.

CoNet Section: 

Quietly, almost under the counter, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority is preparing itself for life outside the EU with a raft of agreements directly negotiated with regulators around the world.

BIScom Subsection: 

It's very clear that, when Britain is outside the EU, there will be changes to the legal and regulatory framework applicable to, amongst other industries, its financial services sector. It is therefore obvious that UK banks must have representation in Frankfurt where the ECB is based. Not only is this not new, it's not even a tiny little threat to the UK financial sector, no matter what the media says.

BIScom Subsection: 

Pages

 


 

hahagotcha