This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41012265

The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Brexit: UK must keep 'half an eye' on European Court of Justice rulings Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court's jurisdiction
(35 minutes later)
The UK will have to keep "half an eye" on the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Brexit, a government minister has said. Theresa May has insisted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK will come to an end with Brexit.
Critics have accused the prime minister of a "climbdown" on her promise the UK would take back control of its laws when it left the EU, in March 2019. As the government published new details of its position, the PM said the UK would "take back control of our laws".
The government maintains the UK will no longer be under the "direct jurisdiction" of the ECJ. But critics say it will be impossible to avoid European judges having a role in enforcing new agreements drawn up with the EU.
But Justice Minister Dominic Raab has now said it will not be a clean break. Ministers say the two sides will keep "half an eye" on each other's rulings.
A paper just published by the government say it is not "necessary or appropriate" for the ECJ to have direct authority over UK law after Brexit, adding that it would be "unprecedented" for it to do so. The promise to end "direct jurisdiction" in recent policy papers - a phrase not used by Mrs May - has raised questions about what "indirect" jurisdiction the EU court could be left with.
It sets out a range of alternative models for dealing with legal disputes with the EU - and argues that the UK is is in a "position of strength" to forge new arrangements suited to its own circumstances. In the latest publication, about how to enforce disputes after Brexit, the government has outlined several models used by other countries that it says show there is no need for the ECJ to be the final arbiter.
Dominic Raab told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Our commitment as a government since the referendum has been crystal clear - we're ending the jurisdiction of the European Court over disputes between the EU and the UK, that's not on the table. But some of these involve the ECJ having an influence on the outcome of disputes, for example by interpreting EU law.
"But look, let's also be clear about it - when we leave the EU, we are taking back control over our laws. The government said it was not committing to following any of the arrangements set out, ruling out an "off the shelf" model.
"There will be divergence between the case law of the EU and the UK, and it is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the EU, and for the EU to keep half an eye on the case law of the UK." And sources played down the significance of the word "direct", saying it meant ECJ rulings would no longer automatically apply to the UK and that the court would no longer be able to strike down domestic UK laws.
The Luxembourg-based ECJ is in charge of ensuring member states abide by EU law. The policy paper also does not rule out ECJ jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period that is planned after March 2019, saying the UK will work with the EU on the "arrangements for judicial supervision".
Mrs May said: "What we will be able to do is to make our own laws - Parliament will make our laws - it is British judges that will interpret those laws, and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the ultimate arbiter of those laws."
Earlier Justice Minister Dominic Raab said there would be "divergence" between UK and EU case law after Brexit, adding: "t is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the EU, and for the EU to keep half an eye on the case law of the UK."
The ECJ is in charge of ensuring member states abide by EU law.
Its rulings are binding on all member states, and it also settles disputes between countries and EU institutions.Its rulings are binding on all member states, and it also settles disputes between countries and EU institutions.
Direct or indirect?Direct or indirect?
Analysis by the BBC's Ross HawkinsAnalysis by the BBC's Ross Hawkins
Theresa May has promised - repeatedly - to simply leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Theresa May has promised - repeatedly - to simply leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
In this morning's briefing there's a subtle difference. The government will "build towards ending the direct jurisdiction" of the court.In this morning's briefing there's a subtle difference. The government will "build towards ending the direct jurisdiction" of the court.
Sources insist nothing has changed; the language has been used before. But what the word "direct" really means and how much say if any the ECJ will have in the UK after Brexit are now crucial questions.Sources insist nothing has changed; the language has been used before. But what the word "direct" really means and how much say if any the ECJ will have in the UK after Brexit are now crucial questions.
Or - to put them another way - are we really taking back as much control as leave voters hoped?Or - to put them another way - are we really taking back as much control as leave voters hoped?
The ECJ's remit extends into many of the areas where the UK is hoping to draw up new arrangements with the EU, including trade and citizens' rights.The ECJ's remit extends into many of the areas where the UK is hoping to draw up new arrangements with the EU, including trade and citizens' rights.
Mr Raab said "some form of arbitration" would be needed, but that this would not be akin to a European court.Mr Raab said "some form of arbitration" would be needed, but that this would not be akin to a European court.
Arbitration is where disputes are settled by a neutral third party. The UK and the EU could each appoint arbitrators and agree on a third, Mr Raab suggested.Arbitration is where disputes are settled by a neutral third party. The UK and the EU could each appoint arbitrators and agree on a third, Mr Raab suggested.
He said this was different to the UK accepting the jurisdiction of ECJ which would be "lopsided and partisan and that's not on the cards".He said this was different to the UK accepting the jurisdiction of ECJ which would be "lopsided and partisan and that's not on the cards".
European Court of JusticeEuropean Court of Justice
Pro-EU campaigners say the government made an "appalling error" by making leaving the ECJ a "red line" in Brexit negotiations, saying new courts will now be needed in all the areas it extends to, including trade, citizens' rights and security.Pro-EU campaigners say the government made an "appalling error" by making leaving the ECJ a "red line" in Brexit negotiations, saying new courts will now be needed in all the areas it extends to, including trade, citizens' rights and security.
The pro-EU Open Britain group claimed a "climbdown" in the government's approach.The pro-EU Open Britain group claimed a "climbdown" in the government's approach.
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour's shadow Brexit secretary, said: "The prime minister's ideological insistence that there can be no future role whatsoever for the ECJ or any similar court-like body risks preventing the deal Britain needs."Sir Keir Starmer, Labour's shadow Brexit secretary, said: "The prime minister's ideological insistence that there can be no future role whatsoever for the ECJ or any similar court-like body risks preventing the deal Britain needs."
Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mrs May's "red lines are becoming more blurred by the day", saying the ECJ had "served Britain's interests well" and should not be "trashed".Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mrs May's "red lines are becoming more blurred by the day", saying the ECJ had "served Britain's interests well" and should not be "trashed".