UK Lawyers Are Moving To Ireland Due To Brexit

For many UK lawyers an understanding of both the British and European laws is imperative. With the Brexit, the need for European legal issues is in high demand, but not in Britain.


A ‘magic circle’ of legal firms register their solicitors so that they may practise in European law by moving to Ireland. Some of these legal firms include some of the UK’s largest including Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughter and May, and Allen & Overy have voiced out that their applicants join solicitors in the Republic of Ireland.

Slaughter and May had first funded their Brussels-based competition partners to join in the Republic of Ireland. Meanwhile, Freshfields and Hogan Lovells encouraged some of their partners to follow suit.

Eversheds also plan to launch their own Eversheds Consulting in Ireland with a Dublin team led by litigation partner Pamela O’Neill.

So far this year, 219 English solicitors have been admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in Ireland — compared with 70 in 2015. The Law Society says the vast majority of lawyers have cited Brexit as their primary reason for seeking admission in Ireland.

Under the rules, solicitors who have qualified in England, Wales and Northern Ireland can undergo a two-step process that allows them to practise as solicitors in Ireland.


Merkel Warns The UK: You Can”t “Cherry Pick” Laws

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the United Kingdom is welcome to re-negotiate its relationship with the European Union. Merkel stressed the United Kingdom cannot “cherry pick” laws whichever it wished.

She said all 28 nations of the bloc agreed the British government would not receive acknowledgement for negotiations until Article 5, the formal process for leaving the European Union is triggered.

“The decision has been taken … and the next step is and Britain will do this only when they have a new prime minister to invoke Article 50,” she said.

“I expect that to happen. I deal with reality and I firmly expect that application will be made.”

She added: “We have spoken to Britain and made clear there will be no negotiations with Britain until they have made their application, and there will be no cherry picking.”

“We have spoken to Britain and made clear there will be no negotiations with Britain until they have made their application, and there will be no cherry picking.”

In the United Kingdom, about 1,000 lawyers have written to British Prime Minister David Cameron saying the EU referendum result must be criticised because it was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that couldn”t be delivered.

The barristers also said the referendum”s decision was only “advisory” and not legally binding.

Oldest British Legal History Defendant Denies Child Sex Offences

Accused with 17 indecent assaults, 12 offences of indecency with a child and two attempted sexual offences in 1974 and 1983, 101-years-old Ralph Clarke pleads not guilty to the charges before him.

About 31 offences dating back 40 years involved children aged between four and 13 years old in 1974 and 1983. The court heard from the prosecution that the offences happened in his garage, workshop and in his lorry cab.

A former lorry driver from Birmingham, the old man had found trouble hearing the court despite having fresh batteries in his hearing aid.

He was told that he will have renewed bail until trial and is unconditional. But his failure to attend court would mean his absence permits the hearing without his representation.

The trial date for Ralph Clarke was set for December 5 and may last two weeks.

Drone Strikes Used Outside Of Armed Conflict Needs Clarifying

The UK government said its drones does not have a “targetted killing” policy. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said the UK was willing to use lethal force in the Middle East and overseas.

The drone case involves the killing of a UK citizen in Syria by an RAF drone.

Reyaad Khan, who joined the Islamic State in Syria, was killed by a military-operated drone August of 2015.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the 21-year-old from Cardiff plotted to attempt “barbaric” attacks on UK soil.

He justified the attack was an act of self-defence in that regard.

Parliament added:

“Although the government says that it does not have a ‘targeted killing’ policy, it is clear that it does have a policy to use lethal force abroad outside armed conflict for counter-terrorism purposes.

“Certain aspects of the government’s view of the legal basis for its policy require urgent clarification,” they said.

Committee chairman and Labour MP Harriet Harman said the legal justification for the drone strike on Khan had been “confused and confusing”.

She called for the UK government to lead the way internationally by defining a clear legal basis for action, and making sure those who made decisions were held accountable.

“As the world faces the grey area between terrorism and war, there needs to be a new international consensus on when it is acceptable for a state to take a life outside of armed conflict,” she said.

A government spokesman said: “We are clear that where we identify a direct and imminent threat to the UK we will take lawful action to address it and report to Parliament after we have done so.

“Such actions are only to be carried out as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted, and we would always do so in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

Offshore Accounts Has Legalised Corruption Worldwide

Global banking and business connections has been the aim of the West’s globalisation to begin with.


In spite of multiculturalism knocking on almost anyone’s door through the Internet, everyone also enjoys a piece of cultural pies made from different cultures worldwide.

Unfortunately, that also meant organised criminals can come in different forms and cultural backgrounds.

‘Mafia’ and ‘mafioso’ at this point would mean differently. It isn’t just criminals hiding their moneys in casinos and up-front businesses anymore.

Because elites are also doing it. If you’ve been watching the Panama paper news closely, you know what I’m talking about.

British President David Cameron is also deep in hot water because of the issue. Several government officials, including the Prime Minister of Iceland had resigned partly due to these revelations.

Worldwide, governments have found officials engaging in legalised corrupt activity.

What that means is tax evasion.

In the United Kingdom, tax evasion is more of a way to minimise your yearly tax fees by a huge margin. Tax evasion also means you’re denying people their right to develop their own income and for governments to develop land for many people.

I know it’s not a socialist manner of thought. But capitalism has trusted the modern man to make the right decisions out of the goodness of their heart.

There’s always a way to corrupt or hack a political system. Unfortunately, nothing ever works.

The Brexit’s Effects On Law Degress

The UK is the premier hub of law and legal services in the country. With barristers aplenty, EU and UK law are taught in classrooms. The university law syllabus of many legal institutions included the EU for decades.

EU law dominates all domestic laws simply because the UK’s legal system interacts deeply with EU’s approval.

So here are a few changes we should expect to see.

Constitutional law

This module focuses on the key organising principles of our constitution, such as doctrines like the rule of law, separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty, and the impact of the EU and devolution on these. One of the major debates within this module, requiring students to dissect cases like Factortame, Thoburn and Jackson, is whether parliament sacrificed its sovereignty by implementing the European Community Act 1972 (ECA).

A Brexit wouldn’t render an EU law module less useful and students would still need to study it

Clearly, a Brexit could have a major impact on how students are expected to discuss this debate. It would offer them a new perspective through which doctrines could be examined.

But it seems improbable that a major overhaul of the constitutional law module would be on the cards, according to Mark Elliott, a law professor at the University of Cambridge, who says “immediate changes to what students study are unlikely”.

However, Professor Elliott says a Brexit could affect what students look at in constitutional law. “Although it would lay to rest the debate about the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the primacy of EU law, the interaction of those principles during the UK’s membership of the EU has revealed important things about sovereignty, and our constitution more generally, that would remain relevant,” to essays on such topics.

Tort law

Tort law largely originates from the English common law system and legislation created independently by parliament. However, in certain key areas, parliament has to pass laws in order to ensure English law complies with EU directives.

Immediately after a Brexit, directive-driven statutes that already exist – such as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) which comes from EC directive 85/374 – would remain good law until amended or repealed by parliament. Most of the law in these areas is settled and amendments and repeals unlikely, meaning that for students studying these areas of tort law, there is likely to be little impact.

However, if there were to be changes effected by parliament, a Brexit could prevent the EU from having any further influence over such amendments and repeals. Parliament could have the unfettered ability to pass new legislation to govern tort law. Any alterations to the law could therefore be more drastic than without a Brexit, for parliament could include or exclude provisions it may have had to sacrifice or water-down in order to comply with EU law, as is its obligation as a member state. This could lead to potentially sweeping changes to some areas of tort law that law students would have to tackle.

Contract law

Contract law, which is largely a product of common law, could still in some respects be affected by a Brexit.

Interpretation of contracts is the key element of a contract law module: if you don’t know how to work out a contract’s contents, how can you learn the rules that govern it? There already exists a set of conditions for this purpose that is almost universally applied.

But a new set of conditions could be needed, which students may be expected to learn and apply to cases where – for example – there is a debate over how courts would interpret contracts that were meant to be governed by English law (when it included some EU law principle) but English law now no longer contains that principle (because of a Brexit).

EU law

Leaving the EU would obviously significantly affect a module about EU law, in which the constitution and the general workings of the EU court are studied alongside principles like freedom of movement and human rights. Jonny Dodd, 21, a law student at the University of Cambridge, jokes: “I’m tempted to vote no in the referendum, just so I have less EU law to learn.”

However, a Brexit wouldn’t necessarily render an EU module less useful and students would still need to study it. Professor Catherine Barnard, from the University of Cambridge, says: “If there is a Brexit, much depends on what’s put in its place. If it’s the Norway option, students will still need to study EU law; much will continue to apply, especially the law of the single market. And even if there is no alternative arrangement in place, the EU will continue to be our biggest trading partner and so many EU rules will continue to apply.”

Students may have to pay closer attention to the European Court of Justice because of the potential divergence between English and EU case law that a Brexit could facilitate. Furthermore, with the SRA and BSB recognising that EU law represents a springboard from which to study other specialist areas of law and progress towards qualification as a solicitor or barrister, we can be fairly sure that the EU law module will remain compulsory for students.

Source: The Guardian

Assange Is Circumventing The Law

After the UN Working Group On Arbitrary Detention said Julian Assange’s ongoing London Ecuadorian Embassy incarceration declared the imprisonment as contrary to international law, his supporters rejoiced. The Wikileaks founder had been living in the Embassy as Ecuador granted asylum to the man viewed as a hero and villain by many observers.

However, the ruling may either help Assange have an extended stay in the embassy.

Assange was accused of raping a woman. But his lawyers and the UN Working Group said that Sweden’s accusation of Assange’s crime is not supported with detailed evidence.

However, many view that Assange is using the system the way his political opponents would; avoid the law by any means necessary. UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond called the entire situation “ridiculous”.

Should countries belonging to the UN disregard the UN working group’s opinion, it can be a blow to human rights. Both Sweden and Britain have ignored the landmark opinion.

The Working Group said the facilities lacked the basic amenities needed, such as access to medical facilities and treatment. It said Assange’s health was at serious risk.

Meanwhile, Assange would be put to cruel and inhumane treatment in the US according to observers. This follows after Chelsea Manning, a whistleblower who violated the Espionage act, was subject to torture and abuse by US national security.