Britain to draft guildlines for leaving European Court jurisdiction

"We have already begun to set out what we would like to see from a future relationship on issues such as customs and are ready to begin a formal dialogue on this and other issues".

It seems like a small, rather technical shift, but it is a recognition by the United Kingdom government of post-Brexit reality that makes the chance of an eventual Brexit deal ever so slightly more likely.

"The U.K.'s commitment to the rule of law has been built over centuries, and reaffirmed time and again by effective, independent courts", the paper said. "In my view, that has been getting out of control".

"Hopefully we can make fast progress on the three areas I have mentioned because once we have reached sufficient progress there, we can move on to the second stage", he concluded. We asked him to describe the UK's relationship with the ECJ (a.k.a. CJEU).

"There will be divergence between the case law of the European Union and the United Kingdom, and it is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the United Kingdom to keep half an eye on the case law of the European Union, and for the European Union to keep half an eye on the case law of the United Kingdom". The paper instead contains a series of suggestions which leave the door open for a new semi-detached relationship which could still see the United Kingdom referring cases to the ECJ, or relying on their rulings. But at the same time the ECJ would not have jurisdiction on matters that arose within the United Kingdom, fulfilling May's pledge. Applicable law is the law that is applied by that court.

With the publication of today's position paper, we do. "But that does not remove its role in deciding on the applicable law".

He, like May, denied that use of the word "direct" before jurisdiction meant the government had now accepted that the court would continue to have influence over British law.

But it listed other forms of tribunals as potential models instead of the ECJ. It's not clear from the government's paper whether that will happen with the United Kingdom - but it's not been ruled out. It would be "exceptional" under worldwide law for the United Kingdom to continue to accept the direct oversight of the ECJ after ceasing to be part of the union.

The City is set to propose to the government a "mutual access" trade pact between the United Kingdom and the European Union after Brexit, allowing firms to continue their cross-border business activity.

Would we be free from the ECJ? Or as Justice Minister Dominic Raab put it, the U.K.is willing to keep "half an eye" on ECJ rulings.

Yet amid the fence-sitting, there are clear signs that May's government is finally starting to wake up to the hard realities of Brexit.

Dr Bartels says "no".

His admission that European case law will affect Britain was welcomed by George Osborne's former chief of staff Rupert Harrison, who said it was evidence of a "sensible approach hiding in plain sight".

"Furthermore, the ECJ clause in the Lugano Convention is similar (but not identical) to the ECJ clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill as proposed by the government - which says that pre-Brexit ECJ rulings stay binding (subject to the UK Supreme Court possibly overruling them, or the government or parliament overruling them), while post-Brexit ECJ may be taken into account by courts in the UK". On a strict technical interpretation, then, we haven't seen a U-turn from the government this week.

To many Brexiters it seemed obvious: the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, so there would be no reason for its court to have any say in our laws. That's why it looks as though the United Kingdom is working towards a Norway-style Brexit - a return to the EEA, subject to the EFTA court, and maintaining a less obvious submission to the ECJ court.

That simply stands to reason: EEA countries are, after all, within the EU's single market.