Search results

"The result of the UK referendum in June 2016 on membership of the European Union had immediate repercussions across the UK, the EU and internationally. As the dust begins to settle, attention is now naturally drawn to understanding why this momentous decision came about and how and when the UK will leave the EU. What are the options for the new legal settlements between the UK and the EU? What will happen to our current political landscape within the UK in the time up to and including its exit from the EU? What about legal and political life after Brexit? Within a series of short essays, Brexit Time explores and contextualises each stage of Brexit in turn: pre-referendum; the result; the process of withdrawal; rethinking EU relations; and post-Brexit. During a time of intense speculation and commentary, this book offers an indispensable guide to the key issues surrounding a historic event and its uncertain aftermath"--Provided by publisher

The Treaty of Amsterdam committed EU member states to tackle social exclusion. This book aims to explore, from an inter-disciplinary perspective, the possibilities and limitations of the attempts by the EU to co-ordinate and 'Europeanize' member states' strategies and policies

Abstract: With the United Kingdom having finally withdrawn from the European Union, and with a new Trade and Cooperation Agreement in place to begin to manage their economic relationship, it might be thought that the constitutional drama of 'Brexit' was finally at an end. Yet the longer‐term constitutional implications of Brexit and its repatriation of the European regulatory state are becoming apparent. This is particularly evident in the decision of the UK Government to legislate for a United Kingdom Internal Market (UKIM). The analysis here advances two claims: first, the creation of a statutory internal market represents a strategy to 'de‐constitutionalise' the governance of the internal market; and second, as an instrument of 'economic unionism', the United Kingdom Internal Market Act is disruptive of, and for, 'collaborative unionism' within the political and territorial constitution of the UK.

Special Issue on 'The Brexit Negotiations & The May Government' ; One of the fundamental risks of a 'No Deal' Brexit would be the loss of a transition period between the United Kingdom's (UK) departure from the European Union (EU) and the entry into force of subsequent agreements establishing the future relationship between the UK and the EU. The idea of a transitional period of legal and economic continuity and certainty was suggested by the UK Government at the outset of the Article 50 TEU negotiations and accepted (with qualifications) by the EU. However, the early consensus around creating a 'safety net' against the parties falling over the cliff-edge of a disorderly departure and a 'bridge' to a future relationship changed after the negotiations were concluded. For those opposed to the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement, the transition period ヨ like the Irish 'backstop' ヨ seemed more like a 'trap' or a 'trampoline' to maintain alignment with the EU post-Brexit. The first aim of this article is to analyse what the UK and the EU sought to achieve in the negotiations by agreeing a transition period. The second aim is to consider whether ヨ in combination with other factors ヨ the outcome of the negotiations on a transition period contributed to the failure of the UK to exit the EU as intended on 29 March 2019. The article concludes that the Article 50 negotiation process underestimates the way in which the momentous nature of a decision to leave the EU unleashes political forces that inhibit a smooth and orderly exit and transition.