Back to top
Editor's blog

No deal, no say?

6 Aug 18

The arguments for a second EU referendum apply with greater force in a "no deal" scenario

August may be the month when current affairs are usually less dominant in the news, but this year Brexit looks like it will remain in the headlines.

It is not surprising, with only a matter of months remaining until the UK’s scheduled leaving date and little sign of consensus, whether within the Conservative Party, the wider nation or as between the UK and the EU27, on the terms on which we will continue to trade with the EU – if indeed an agreement will be reached at all.

The prospect of no agreement ought to be a matter of alarm, even if Government ministers are displaying some bravado over this outcome. The reaction to suggestions of food stockpiling may have slowed the release of the promised scenario papers relating to a no-deal Brexit. But others have spoken out: airlines and the aviation industry, for example, have warned that they do not even have a fallback position comparable to the WTO rules that apply to most trade, and the prospect of planes no longer flying is not so fanciful. Shipping companies are equally concerned.

On a narrower legal view, “no deal” would scupper hopes of reciprocal agreements, including recognition and enforcement, continuing in force, and serious problems would surely emerge very quickly in both the commercial and family law contexts. And what of the UK’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement in relation to the Irish border?

Immediately after the 2016 referendum, this column argued that it would be in the interests of all sides for the people to be given the chance, before withdrawal actually takes effect, to answer the question, in effect, “This is what Brexit actually means; is that what you want or should we remain as we were?” That was written in the belief that there would be an agreement. It surely applies with greater force if there is not.

Opinion in favour of a further poll has been slow to gain momentum, but it is building. The importance of the Government being answerable in some way is greatly increased in the event of no deal: can our elected representatives take a stand, at least to attempt to delay the cliff-edge scenario? That was certainly not an option being promoted during the campaign. And there must be some risk of the democratic process as it works in this country being regarded with some contempt, if the last poll continues to be presented as the settled will of the people despite the growing questions over its integrity due to covert activities. That can only be harmful in the long run.

Have your say

Blog archive

6 Aug 18

No deal, no say?

The arguments for a second EU referendum apply with greater force in a "no deal" scenario

9 Jul 18

System under threat

Items in this month's issue illustrate increasing threats to the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system

11 Jun 18

Speaking out

The benefit sanctions system has drawn some unusually sharp comments from the Society, but the need for such strictures is likely to increase

8 May 18

After Windrush

The treatment of those of Caribbean origin shows a need for the law to be rebalanced

9 Apr 18

Mind the gap

Do the Gender Pay Gap Regulations provide enough useful information to justify their approach?

12 Mar 18

Case to be made

If the independent legal aid review could not find evidence to support a general rise in fees, what should the response be?

9 Feb 18

Crunch time

The independent reports due in the next few months will be an indication of how the profession is seen from outside

9 Jan 18

Hold tight for 2018

Get set for another rollercoaster ride through the year

4 Dec 17

Trends and revelations

From the Journal employment survey: sexual harassment must be taken seriously

9 Nov 17

Mergers and markets

After the Maclays-Dentons merger, what now for the independent Scottish legal firm?

9 Oct 17

For the greater good

The profession should support those who attempt to improve the lot of the most vulnerable

11 Sep 17

Brexit and the legal order

Government recognition of the need to continue civil judicial cooperation with EU countries after Brexit is welcome, but how can it exclude the involvement of the CJEU?