The Multi-state Professional Responsibility Exam, or “ethics exam” (MRPE) is one of three exams required in order to practice law in an American state (more on that here). Having just taken the exam, here are my thoughts as a lawyer currently practicing in England.
The MPRE tests a prospective lawyer’s understanding of professional ethics regulation in the United States. The questions are based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The MPRE is a 60-item (50 scored questions and 10 non-scored questions), two-hour multiple-choice examination administered three times each year at established test centers across the country. You must pass the MPRE before you can be admitted to practice in the United States, but you can take it anytime after completing their first year of law school (including after sitting the bar exam itself).
I chose to sit the exam in New York City because: 1) it’s easiest to get to from London and 2) my husband works for a NY headquartered company, so he was able to meet up with colleagues while we were there. My score will be sent to my jurisdiction of choice, which happens to be California.
On the morning of the exam, I woke up at about 5AM: this was due to still being on “London time” and somewhat jet-lagged! I bought some coffee and brought it back to the hotel room, and spent about an hour doing some last minute cursory revision.
At 8AM, I walked the three blocks to the testing centre at Pace University. The reporting time was at 8:15, and there was already a massive queue of students and prospective lawyers outside. We were held in the queue for about 30 minutes and enjoyed chatting to a few people about our various career stages. I even spoke to a young guy who was resitting the exam after failing it previously. It’s important to maintain some perspective: failing isn’t the end of the world!
At 8:45AM we began to stream into the building, where people were turned away for having backpacks (the rules clearly state NO BAGS). At one point a test invigilator said, “if you have cellphones, don’t tell me about them! Just make sure they’re turned off and hidden away!” Phones, like bags, are also forbidden – but I suppose there was a slightly more lenient approach to having them on this occasion.
We then went through the process of having our admission tickets checked against our ID, and sent into our testing rooms. At Pace, we sat in small classrooms with about 20 people per room: there wasn’t any assigned seating, it was simply done on a first-come, first-seated basis.
By 9AM, everyone in my room was seated and the door was closed. The invigilator read instructions about the exam, and we had a few minutes to fill out the various bubbles with our names and other bits of information. At 9:10AM we were permitted to break open the seal of our papers and begin.
I probably invested about 50 hours in studying for the MPRE over the course of two months. That time includes listening to MPRE lectures while going into work on the tube, however.
I first familiarised myself with the subject matter breakdown of the exam itself, available here on the NCBE website.
I identified which questions were tripping me up and what Rule they related to. I then read the explanatory comments for those particular rules, also available on the ABA website.
I read through all of the test day instructions at least one week prior to the exam itself, so I knew exactly where to go and what to bring (for example, a passport photo in addition to ID!)
Final thoughts and tips
Do focus your energies on practice questions when studying! This exam is not about understanding the theory or philosophy of professional ethics. You will not be writing essays about the merits of client confidentiality!
Do review the commentary for rules that you want more clarity on. The commentary is far less vague than the rules, and often includes practical examples.
Do not underestimate this exam. Especially as a foreign lawyer, I found some of the rules a bit counter intuitive. Don’t be tempted to cram the night before: I strongly recommend dedicating 20 hours to studying for this exam if you’re an American law student, and more if you’re a foreign lawyer.
Do feel free to contact LSAC ahead of time at at MPREinfo@LSAC.org if you have questions, including questions about test center assignments. I originally registered to take the exam in Seattle but then changed my mind. LSAC staff were very helpful and the change only took one email to initiate.
Do not bother trying to memorise the rules!
Do not worry about drinking too much coffee on the morning of the exam. You will have plenty of opportunities to use the toilet – at least I did at my centre!
Do manage your time. You will have two minutes per question. Some questions only took me 20 seconds to answer. My advice? Go through the exam answering everything you can on a first pass. If you come across anything that requires a bit of contemplation, write the question number down on the test booklet, and return to it later. When you go through the exam for a second time, cross off the difficult questions from your earlier list.
Do not be afraid to guess, if for whatever reason you can’t come up with the answer. There are no penalties for wrong answers, so just give it your best shot!
Three times each year, two professional American football teams journey across the pond to play against each other in the NFL London Games. This weekend however, four players from the Jacksonville Jaguars made headlines for something they did off the field.They were arrested under suspicion of fraud by false representation for attempting to leave a nightclub without paying the £50,000 ($64,000) bar tab.
According to ProFootball Talk, expensive bottles of champagne and vodka were sent to the players’ table. They thought someone else was paying, and were surprised to learn that they were expected to pay. The bill was settled hours after the arrest, and the players were released with no further action taken by police. “There was definitely a misunderstanding,” said Barry Church, one of the players arrested. “We handled it as a private matter within the team, and we’ll just go from there.”
Despite their fame and talent, at the end of the day, professional athletes are capable of making mistakes just like the rest of us. But unlike the rest of us, sports stars are often contractually obligated to maintain a positive reputation.
The NFL has had a formal policy addressing off-field conduct since 1997. The current 2014 Personal Conduct Policy prohibits physical violence, illegal possession of a gun or drugs, and cruelty to animals – remember Michael Vick and his dogfighting? But the policy also prohibits anything “that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL.” Even if a player’s conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, the NFL can impose fines, suspension, or even banishment from the league.
In addition to the NFL Policy, individual player contracts also contain “morality clauses.” Also known as a “moral turpitude clause” or “bad boy clause”, this permits an employer to end the contractual relationship if the employee’s conduct breaches the moral expectations laid out in the employment or endorsement agreement. For my overview of the history and use of morality clauses more generally, see Morality Clauses in Talent Contracts.
The 2012 contract between Arian Foster (“Player”) and the Houston Texans (“Club”) is available online thanks to a (fascinating) IPO filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Clauses regarding Foster’s behaviour and conduct included:
Player agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.
If at any time, in the sole judgement of Club, Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract.
Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the integrity and good character of NFL players.
“Meaning Transference” and marketing magic
You might be wondering why a football team should care about the off-field behaviour of its players. As long as the guy can run the ball or block a tackle, who cares if he’s arrested for trying to skip out on a bar tab. Right? Wrong.
Consider for a moment the amount of money teams and companies invest in employment contracts and endorsement agreements. By way of example, Russell Wilson earned $2 million during his first three seasons with the Seattle Seahawks. In 2015, the Hawks rewarded their quarterback with a renewed contract worth nearly $90 million. Wilson also gets $10 million a year from his deals with Bose, Nike, and Alaska Airlines. On the other side of the country, the New York Giants’ wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr is earning about $10 million over four years. But the real kicker is that Nike recently signed him for the biggest shoe endorsement ever, worth $25 million over five years.
Meaning Transference is a social theory which posits consumers “transfer” the perceived ideals, credibility and reputation of celebrities to the associated product or service being sold (Grant McCracken). Because negative perceptions can also transfer, a company will want to distance themselves if a celebrity behaves badly. Essentially, morality clauses protect the team or company’s public image from the athlete’s potential scandals. In practice, this could mean suspending or terminating the contract, which could cost the athlete thousands – or potentially millions – of dollars.
The crux of any morality clause is how the “bad behaviour” is defined. Does a player kneeling during the American national anthem adversely affect the image of the NFL?
Given today’s heated political climate, it’s no surprise that professional athletes are increasingly voicing – or otherwise demonstrating – their opinions on social issues. In 2016, Colin Kaepernick of the San Fransisco 49’s started the trend of protesting police brutality and racial inequality, by kneeling during the national anthem at the start of games. Other players soon joined in, much to the ire of many football fans and prominent figures, including President Trump. That same year, Kaepernick was deemed the most hated player in the NFL.
Speaking to The Washington Post, constitutional law Professor Fred Smith Jr. described the anthem debate as a “clash of values which has become a very fraught issue in the American political imagination.” The NFL reacted to the situation by announcing a new policy in May of this year: players must either stand for the national anthem on the field or wait in the locker room. The policy was then shut down by the NFL’s labour union (NFLPA) only two months later.
As the NFL and the NFLPA continue to negotiate, “no new rules relating to the anthem will be issued or enforced”. However, introduction of the new rules in the first place demonstrates that the NFL is at least attempting to mitigate the perception that it is an unpatriotic organisation. It could be argued that from the NFL’s perspective, it is the result of the public’s perception that matters, and not the conduct itself.
In spite of the furor and uproar, Nike made a risky decision in September to feature Colin Kaepernick in an advertising campaign. Despite some backlash and boycotts, the move paid off handsomely overall: Nike received valuable free publicity, and online sales and stock price skyrocketed. In this way, Kaepernick’s kneeling is both detrimental to one organisation (the NFL), as well as highly profitable for another (Nike).
Ultimately, it is critical to understand that morality clauses attempt to regulate something that is continually in flux. Opponents of morality clauses worry that the definition of what constitutes “immoral” or damaging activity could be too broad and subject to abuse by the employer. Smart sports stars and their lawyers will therefore do well to ensure that morality clauses are carefully negotiated and written precisely in order to protect their position – and their paycheques.
The #MeToo movement has brought Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) as a way to silence allegations of sexual harassment into the public debate. In light of controversies surrounding Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein and now – Sir Philip Green, the billionaire retailer whose brands include Topshop – much has been discussed about the legality and morality of using NDAs to prevent publicity or otherwise cover up bad behaviour.
But like any legal document, NDAs are not inherently “good” or “bad”. They are simply a tool, regularly used by lawyers in many contexts. To understand why they have become controversial, and to contribute to the debate concerning their use and abuse, we must first consider their structure and purpose.
NDAs, which are also called Confidentiality Agreements, are simply a type of contract used to prevent someone from sharing confidential information in ways which are unacceptable or damaging to another person. What information is considered “confidential” depends very much on the situation, as well as the relationship between the person providing the information (“discloser“) and the person receiving it (“recipient“).
Use of the word “confidential” to mean “intended to be treated as private” dates from the 1770s, and has its roots in the Latin word confidentia. This means “firmly trusting,” and is itself derived from confidere, which means “to have full trust or reliance.”
Confidential information is often shared for a business purpose or in corporate negotiations, especially when mergers or collaborations occur.For example, a restaurant chain looking for a deal with a food manufacturer may want to share recipes, or a fashion designer may seek a partnership with a well-known athlete who has sketches and drawings of a sports-inspired clothing range. Likewise, when a company hires a new employee, they may be given access to company client lists, manufacturing processes or other valuable data.
The basic anatomy of the NDA is relatively straight forward, and should always contain the following elements:
A clear definition of the confidential information.
These are often heavily negotiated clauses, and it is usual to have very wordy and detailed definitions which set out explicitly what is and is not captured by the agreement. Sometimes, even the NDA itself is considered “confidential information,” which means that its terms or existence must be kept secret.The discloser will often want a broad definition of confidential information which covers not only the documents or products in question, but perhaps any derivative ideas, feedback, analysis or concepts created or inspired by the confidential information. On the other hand, the receiving party will want to keep this definition as narrow as possible.
The key obligation to keep the information secret. Standard wording will typically begin as follows: “In return for the discloser making confidential information available to the recipient, the recipient promises to the discloser that it shall keep the confidential information secret and confidential.”However, the obligation clause almost always contains many more rules and responsibilities. For example, the recipient may be prohibited from even indirectly sharing or hinting at the confidential information. They may also be prohibited from making copies, removing the information from a particular location, or storing it on their personal smartphone.
The ways in which the information can be used. The recipient will be prohibited from using or exploiting the confidential information except for the “purpose.” The purpose is the defined reason the information will be shared in the first place, for example, “to establish a collaboration in respect of the Tommy Hilfiger x Lewis Hamilton fashion line.”Disclosures of the information by the recipient to their employees and professional advisers (including lawyers and accountants) are usually permitted. In such cases, the discloser may ask that all individuals who receive the confidential information from the recipient sign a separate confidentiality agreement. While some may consider this a bit over the top, it makes sense from the discloser’s perspective that the receiver should take responsibility if its employees or advisers breach confidentiality.
What happens if the project or deal does not go ahead, and the duration of the secrecy. The discloser will often ask that the receiver returns or destroys the confidential information if the project or transaction fails to materialise. The parties should also establish a realistic time period for the duration of the secrecy, as it may be unreasonable to expect that the information has to remain confidential for eternity.
Seems simple enough, so what’s all the fuss about?
As mentioned above, NDAs are incredibly common and used in a wide variety of situations, ranging from complex corporate takeovers to short-term collaborations. But despite their ubiquitous nature and seemingly straightforward terms, it would be a mistake to assume that these are simple contracts.
It is rare for the parties entering the agreement to have perfectly equal bargaining power. Due to an imbalance of money, expertise, resources or even reputation, one of the parties involved will almost always be able to exert more influence over the other. This inherent imbalance can lead to the creation of NDAs which grant – or limit – rights in an unfair or improper way.
Entrepreneurs may think that an NDA adequately protects their valuable information when it is divulged to a potential investor. But unless the definitions and obligations are sufficiently locked down, little may prevent the investor from stealing the entrepreneur’s ideas.
Similarly, some unscrupulous companies may attempt to force their employees to enter into NDAs in an attempt to prevent whistleblowing or discrimination lawsuits. Matters can become very complex when an individual who has a grievance against a powerful boss is threatened with dismissal or further harassment, unless they sign an NDA. Moreover, a new common extension of NDAs is the inclusion of a “non-disparagement” clause. This goes beyond the protection of confidential information, and requires employees to never speak negatively about their employer or former employer.
In both the United States and the United Kingdom, lawmakers and courts have begun to establish clearer boundaries about the enforceable scope of NDAs. In the court of public opinion, powerful individuals who weaponise NDAs in an attempt to stifle access to justice, impair free speech and limit creativity are already losing. Regardless of the reason for entering a NDA, you owe it to yourself to ensure the document is checked first by a lawyer, and that your rights – and remedies – are adequately protected.
In The Wife, Glenn Close plays Joan Castleman, the steadfast and amenable wife of celebrated novelist Joseph Castleman. But when Joe wins the Nobel Prize in Literature, things start to unravel between them. Is there more to Joan’s support than meets the eye? In this post, I consider the merits of a hypothetical intellectual property dispute between the couple, and an often-neglected right in particular.
We first meet Joan Castleman – The Wife – the evening before her husband, celebrated novelist Joseph Castleman, wins the Nobel Prize in Literature. Praise and adoration for Joe’s prolific and highly acclaimed body of work are subsequently lavished upon him, while Joan and their two children watch on. But when the family arrives in Stockholm for the award ceremony, we begin to realise that Joe Castleman’s success rests on secrets and sacrifices.
Through the use of flashbacks to the 1950s and 1960s, we learn that Joan was a promising writer. While at college, her then-professor Joe Castleman encourages her writing, and the two eventually become romantically involved. But Joe is not content with merely lecturing about novels: he seeks to prove himself in the literary world as an author himself.
During a heated argument about his poorly written first attempt at a novel, Joe threatens to leave Joan. Desperate to keep him happy and aware of his deep desire for publication, Joan offers to “fix” Joe’s draft. Her amended version of The Walnut is published under Joe’s name, and becomes a literary sensation. For the next forty years, Joan continues to write as Joe gets all of the credit.
What makes The Wife so delicious to watch is the way in which Joan’s character transforms and gains a sense of agency. Having grown up in the sexist environs of mid-century America, Joan at first appears to have dutifully accepted her fate as an ignored, pushed-aside woman whose only roles have been “wife” and “mother.” The announcement of “Joe’s” Nobel Prize in 1996 serves as a catalyst, and through a series of small events Joan eventually gathers momentum and power – like a storm – to unleash her torrential anger. The Roger Ebert review perhaps puts it best, noting that Glenn Close’s Joan “undergoes a quietly powerful transformation from self-deprecating spouse to fiery force of nature.” The film ends on an uncertain yet quietly optimistic note, and we get the sense that Joan will reveal the truth – not only to her family, but to the public – in due course.
As I left the cinema, I found myself ruminating over Joan’s legal position. As the author of the novels, would she stand a chance at winning a copyright lawsuit?
Copyright arises automatically in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This means that from the moment an author expresses something unique in a tangible way – for example, by writing it down using a typewriter – the author obtains an intellectual property right in the work.
It’s pretty clear from the story that Joe did infringe Joan’s intellectual property. Unfortunately for Joan, even if she wanted to bring some sort of copyright lawsuit against her husband Joe, is is doubtful that she would win. Whereas a “negative defense” seeks to factually disprove an element of the plaintiff’s case, an “affirmative defense” defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct.
Put simply, in my imagined Castleman copyright lawsuit scenario, Joe’s lawyers could admit that Joe stole Joan’s work, but argue that he’s innocent in the eyes of the law. Here are three ways in which this could be possible:
Firstly, a lawsuit for copyright infringement must typically be filed within the applicable limitation period. The US Copyright Act requires a civil lawsuit to be filed within three years after the infringing action occurred. As such, a copyright lawsuit concerning Joan’s older novels would be practically impossible.
Secondly, Joan’s conduct may evidence acquiescence, or consent. This means that Joan knowingly watched Joe infringe her IPRs, but failed to raise any objection to the infringement at the time. In some instances, silence or inaction can be a form of “inferred consent.”
Thirdly, if Joe can prove that he infringed Joan’s copyright believing in good faith that he was entitled to do so, estoppel could apply. “Estoppel” as a term might not known by many non-lawyers, but the fundamentals are rather straightforward: a court may prevent (estop) a person from making assertions or from going back on her word, thereby preventing unconscionable conduct.
Nevertheless, Joan’s cause is not a hopeless one. As evidenced by Joan’s emotional attachment and identity tied to her novels, literary and artistic work often mean much more than just the economic value they can generate. The creations can be very special to the person who first produced them, and often speak to immense emotional and intellectual effort. As a result, copyright works can be protected in ways that are different to traditional forms of property.
Moral rights are a type of non-economic rights which are considered personal to an author, in that they are inalienable and fundamental to the individual. Even if an author assigns the intellectual property rights to her novels to a third party, she will still maintain the moral rights to the work.
Chief among the moral rights is the right of attribution, which is the right of an author to be credited as the author of a work in question. Moral rights have a long history in international copyright law, and are set out in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which governs international copyright law:
(1) Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights,the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the workand to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
Moral rights are well established in European legal systems, especially in French and German law. By contrast, moral rights in the United States have been somewhat neglected, as American law traditionally puts more significance on protecting economic interests. This has been changing in recent years however. In 2017, the US Copyright Office commenced a study to review how existing American law, including provisions found in Title 17 of the U.S. Code and other federal and state laws, protects the moral rights of attribution and integrity.
The laws which govern intellectual property rights have been forced to change in the face of challenges posed by the internet, disruptive technologies and an increasingly mobile population. Might moral rights be next on the agenda for American copyright reform? For Joan Castleman at least –whose conflict focuses almost entirely upon her identity and recognition as a writer – it’s easy to see why moral rights could be so important.
I’ve attempted to set out the very basics of Brexit in a (currently) three-part guide designed for those who may not be aware of some of the history and context. In Part Oneof my series, I set out the basics of what the EU is, and why the United Kingdom is set to leave. This Part Two explores some (but not all!) of the main issues and concerns that have complicated or otherwise stalled the negotiations. Part Three will explain why I think Americans should care about Brexit.
There are many issues that have complicated or otherwise stalled the negotiations. Just some of the big concerns and questions are set out below.
The border between Northern Ireland
and the Republic of Ireland.
Despite sharing the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, whereas the Republic of Ireland has been an independent country since 1937.
As a relative newcomer to the UK, I didn’t grow up learning about – of being impacted by – the Northern Ireland conflict. Also known as “The Troubles,” the violence over the constitutional status of Northern Ireland spanned thirty years (1968 – 1998). But despite not knowing all of the details myself, I know enough to appreciate that the open border that was negotiated as part of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) is really important.
As I explained in Part One of my Brexit series, the are no physical borders between EU countries. But the reason there is an open (soft) border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland isn’t just because of EU rules: it’s been open since 1998 because that’s what was agreed in ending decades of violence in Ireland.
Brexit will effectively make the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland an “external EU border.” What complicates things is that the Irish government, the UK government, and EU representatives have all stated that they do not wish for a hard border, due to its sensitive nature. To avoid major chaos ahead of the March withdrawal, The EU proposed a “backstop agreement” that would put Northern Ireland under a bespoke range of EU rules in order to avoid the need for border checks.
But this backstop has been opposed by the British government as it would essentially mean different rules apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. This has reignited the question of allowing Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom to reunite with the Republic of Ireland.
Northern Ireland as a whole voted 56% in favor of remaining in the EU. Recent polling suggests that 52% of voters in Northern Ireland said they would support a united Ireland outside Britain if it leaves the EU.
Scotland was the jurisdiction most in favor of remaining within the EU, with 62% voting remain. However, it’s important to remember that only two years earlier, Scotland had a “leave or remain?” referendum of its own – but in respect to the United Kingdom. In 2014, 45% of Scots voted to leave the United Kingdom, while 55% wanted to remain. But now that the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, some argue that Scotland must go its own way and become an independent country that could – at some point – rejoin the European Union on its own.
Financial services are a key industry in the United Kingdom, and the degree of inter-linkage between London and the EU economies is both economically substantial and intricate in terms of the legislative interface. The “passporting” system allow banks and finance companies to sell their services across the 28-member bloc with a local license, rather than getting a new license to operate in each member country where it does business. Put simply, banks established the UK can buy, sell and trade financial products across the EU with relative ease.
But Theresa May has already ruled out passporting after Brexit. Some of the world’s biggest banks have begun moving jobs out of London, and many question London’s future as a global financial center. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has explained that Theresa May’s proposals for a new financial services regulatory framework “would violate the principle that access rights to the bloc’s financial services market are a gift from Brussels that can be freely withdrawn.”
Commodities and Critical Supplies from the Continent
If Brexit ends up creating regulatory and tariff barriers between the UK and the EU, customs checks and delays could severely hamper the import and export of commodities and critical supplies. Increased tariff and trade complications could disrupt supply chains and drive up operating costs, and the devaluation of the pound leads to higher prices.
The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU, most of which is fruit, veg, and meat. Likewise, as explained by The Guardian, many of the pharmaceutical factories that supply the UK are elsewhere in Europe. Getting medicines to pharmacies and hospitals is a complex process, and if European supply chains are disrupted, there could be shortages. Ministers have therefore drawn up plans to send in the Army to deliver food, medicines and fuel in the event of shortages if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal.
Expats and the End to Freedom of Movement
For both non-UK Europeans living in the UK and UK citizens living elsewhere in Europe, Brexit means uncertainty about residence, pensions, healthcare, and much more. Will these expats need to apply for visas or citizenship? If so, by when? While the EU has published a guide “to help EU citizens make their own decisions about their current situation in the UK in light of Brexit,” many questions still remain.
Currently, 3 million EU citizens live in the UK and 1 million Brits live in other EU countries. These expats stand to lose all automatic rights and protections overnight, which is a deeply upsetting prospect for many. For example, British expats enjoying their retirement on the Continent could stop receiving UK private pension and insurance payments as UK providers lose the authority to transact within the EU. There is also no official word on the process that EU citizens will need to go through here in the UK, to secure or even apply for permanent residency.
The National Health Service
The National Health Service is revered as a national treasure. Much like a child in a custody battle between divorcing parents, the NHS has been used by both sides of the Brexit debate.
On the side of leaving the EU, Vote Leave claimed that the UK sends £350m ($460m) each week to the EU. Online and at other Vote Leave events, the slogan explicitly read “Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week.”
Those who support(ed) remaining in the EU pointed to the fact that the NHS relies on EU staff. Although a majority of NHS staff in England are British, a substantial minority are not. Around 63,000 out of 1.2 million staff are from elsewhere in the EU, with the most represented nationalities being Irish, Polish, and Portuguese.
Elisabetta Zanon, director of the NHS European Office, has laid several other key potential Brexit implications for the NHS over at Kings College London’s UK and EU website. One that stuck out to me in particular is that UK health organisations are one of the largest beneficiaries of EU health research funds in Europe, with €760 million ($875 million) in EU funding having supported research in the UK between 2007 and 2013. The NHS has benefited from this funding, as well as from EU collaboration in clinical research more generally. What is the scope for continued European investment for medical research?
Manufacturing and Motorsport
Petrol heads around the world know that the Britain is famous for its premium and sports car heritage, and is home to Aston Martin, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lotus, McLaren, MG, Mini, and Rolls-Royce… to name a few.
When the UK leaves the EU, it will also leave the single aviation market, which is the regulatory basis for flights in and out of the country at the moment. This impacts not just flights to the EU itself, but to other countries with which the EU has a deal, including the United States. Accordingly, planes leaving the UK could be prevented from using Irish airspace, as the UK’s post-Brexit default trade status under the World Trade Organization does not include commercial travel rules.
Heathrow airport has raised nearly £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in debt to keep it going through a “worst-case scenario” following a hard Brexit. The operator the airport itself has also announced it will move its international HQ from the UK to Amsterdam as a result of Britain leaving the EU. Although a spokesman for British Airway’s parent company stated “we are confident that a comprehensive air transport agreement between the EU and UK will be reached,” Ireland-based RyanAir “believes that the risk of a hard (no-deal) Brexit is being underestimated.” Speaking of airports, there are also growing concerns about those infamous passport queues at Heathrow getting even worse.
Politics and Personalities
Of course, in addition to policy debates, there are also political clashes that may stall or otherwise derail Brexit. These include infighting amongst different factions of the Prime Minister’s Conservative Party, which may threaten Theresa May’s continued leadership.
In a long-read profile of the Prime Minister for the New Yorker, it was posited that Theresa May faces an impossible situation, with populist demands on one side, practical realities on the other and no way to truly reconcile both. “May’s best hope has been to contain the damage on all sides.”
Unfortunately, the British government remains almost exclusively focused on Brexit. “The country — as an administrative entity — has virtually stopped working,” explained Businessweek.
There are also substantial questions about the legitimacy of the referendum itself. The vote was not legally binding, and potential Russian interference with the Vote Leave campaign has also come to light. People’s Vote, a campaign group calling for a public vote on the final Brexit deal, is also gaining in popularity.
For now though, Brexit does appear to be plowing forward, if a bit unsteadily. But it would be unwise to forget that considerable challenges – only a few of which have been mentioned above – still lie ahead.
Coming soon: Why Should Americans Care About Brexit?
I’ve attempted to set out the very basics of Brexit in a (currently) three-part guide, made for those who may not be aware of some of the history and context. In particular, this has been written with Americans in mind. Why? Because as a UK resident, I know Brexit will impact me. But as an American myself, I think Americans should know (and hopefully care) about Brexit, too.
In Part Two of my series, I set out some of the main issues and concerns that have complicated or otherwise stalled the negotiations. Part Three will explain why I think Americans should care about Brexit.
What is the European Union?
What we now call the European Union was first a coal and steel partnership between France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg after World War Two. The philosophical foundation centered on the idea that trade and economic interdependence lessens the risk of armed conflict.
What began as a purely economic trading bloc has developed into a unique economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries. Importantly, countries of the European Union (known as Member States) benefit from access to the Single Market, which allows goods, services, labor (workers) and capital to move freely between countries without tariffs or borders.
So, is the European Union like America, and the member countries are like “States” ?
On the surface, perhaps. You can travel across national borders in the same way you can travel across state lines. Likewise, thanks to the single market, commodities and services can flow between countries, without being subject to tariffs or other trade frictions. Within the 19 countries of the Eurozone, you can even use the same currency. But remember: the EU is a political system, not a country.
As a political science student in university, I had Max Weber’s definition of a nation state drummed into my head: “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.” The EU does not have the power of coercion through police and security forces: this power still belongs to the individual member states. The EU relies on member states to enforce laws and policies, and discretion is permitted in certain areas, including national security.
What are the branches of EU government,
and who is in charge?
The EU doesn’t have a President or Prime Minister in the traditional sense. Rather, four institutions work together to run the EU and handle policies ranging from agriculture, environment, health, trade, foreign relations, security, justice and migration.
European Council – represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Council sets the EU’s overall political direction, but has no powers to pass laws. The President of the Council is currently Donald Tusk. He is the principal representative of the EU on the world stage.
The Commission – also known as the “guardian of the treaties,” the Commission promotes the interests of the EU as a whole.
Parliament – represents the EU’s 510 citizens and is directly elected by them.
European Court of Justice – the ECJ is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. It is composed of one judge per member state – currently 28 – although it normally hears cases in panels of three, five or 15
Although there is no “Capital of Europe,” Brussels in Belgium is home to three of the four key institutions (the ECJ is based in Luxembourg) and is somewhat of an “informal” capital.
Why is the United Kingdom leaving the EU?
A referendum was held on Thursday 23 June, 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to Remain’s 48.1% (see a detailed breakdown of the results here). More than 30 million people voted, representing nearly 72% of eligible voters and 46% of the UK population.
To put this figure in perspective, In the United States, roughly 55% of eligible voters and 42% of the population voted in the 2016 Presidential elections.
Some have lamented the fact that EU citizens living the UK were excluded from voting, as were 16 and 17 year olds. Also worth noting is that England and Wales voted in favor of Brexit, whereas Scotland and Northern Ireland backed staying in the EU. This has led to further questions on democratic legitimacy and the possibility of the Union breaking apart, as discussed below.
Whose idea was this?
The United Kingdom, generally speaking, has had a love-hate relationship with the ideas of a “united Europe” and an “ever closer union” for decades. However, relations have deteriorated considerably over the last ten years. The 2008 global financial crisis, the subsequent Eurozone crisis, an influx of immigrants and refugees, terrorism, and social malaise brought concerns about the relative merits of EU membership into the mainstream political debate.
Perhaps no other political movement was as vocal about the UK leaving the EU than The UK Independence Party, a right-wing Eurosceptic populist party. Colloquially known as UKIP (“you-kip”), the party was led at the time by Nigel Farage – whom you may have seen campaigning next to Donald Trump or appearing on Fox News as a commentator.
To quell infighting within his Conservative Party, and to satisfy voters contemplating leaving the Conservative Party for UKIP over the EU question, Prime Minister David Cameron decided to hold the referendum. He supported the UK remaining in the EU, and although he didn’t have to, he resigned the morning of the referendum announcement.
After the Referendum Vote,
was the UK declared free from EU rule?
Put simply, no. In order to leave the EU, there are a few legal procedures that must be followed (including the triggering of Article 50, addressed below). Furthermore, when the UK leaves the EU, it will also leave the framework of rules and regulations that govern an incredibly wide spectrum of policy areas. The UK still needs to figure out what sort of relationship it wants to have with its neighbors.
Practically speaking, it really is like a divorce. If normally can’t just sign the paperwork one day and be done with the other spouse forever. You need time to discuss what happens with your house, cars, and other assets, as well as your liabilities like the mortgage, credit card debt and little Henry’s school tuition. You also need to decide what your future relationship will look like.
Why is there a deadline of March 2019?
After the Referendum Vote and Cameron’s resignation, fellow Conservative Party politician Theresa May became Prime Minister. In March 2017 – nine months (and quite a few legal battles) after the vote – her government “triggered Article 50” of the Treaty of Lisbon. Although Article 50 is only five paragraphs long, this now-famous provision sets out (inter alia) that:
any EU country may decide to quit the EU;
the exiting country must negotiate its withdrawal with the EU;
there are two years to reach an agreement (unless everyone agrees to extend it) and;
the exiting country cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
The date of 29 March 2019 is therefore important, because it marks two years from the date of the UK’s invoking of Article 50 – the deadline mentioned at paragraph 3.
So what’s happening now?
This is certainly a busy time for politicians, lawyers, lobbyists and concerned citizens. Negotiations about future relations between the UK and the EU are taking place now, in an attempt to reach an agreement as soon as possible.
In July 2018, Theresa May unveiled her cabinet’s official view of a proposed Brexit deal – known as the Chequers Plan. But European Council President Donald Tusk rejected the Chequers plan at an EU summit in Salzburg last month, leading to increased speculation that the UK could leave the EU without a deal.
Meanwhile, calls to hold a “People’s Vote” to allow the British people to have a “final say on Brexit” are gaining momentum. More than 100,000 people are estimated to attend the biggest Brexit protest to date on Saturday, 20 October.
Speaking at a press conference yesterday (16 October), Tusk admitted that he has “no grounds for optimism before tomorrow’s European Council on Brexit. As I see it,” he continued, “the only source of hope for a deal for now is the goodwill and determination on both sides.”
A former Oxford University student asked image agency Alamy to remove photographs of her celebrating the end of exams. Now, the photographer accuses Alamy of “censoring the news”. Is this a threat to freedom of the press, or has the woman’s human right of privacy been correctly protected?
The end of exams are a liberating and happy time for university students around the world. At Oxford, students take their celebrations to another level by partying en masse in the streets, covering each other in champagne, shaving foam, confetti, flour and silly string in a tradition known as “Trashing.”
Speaking to the Press Gazette, Photographer Greg Blatchford explained that during the 2014 Trashing, a student invited him to take photographs of her celebrating on the public streets. Some of the images show her swigging from a bottle of champagne, while in others she is covered in silly string.
Blatchford then sent “about 20” images to Alamy as news content. The former student subsequently stated that she “loved” the images in email correspondence to Blatchford, and even shared them on Facebook. This summer, four years later, the woman contacted Alamy to have the photos deleted. The company removed the images – much to Blatchford’s dismay.
The right to be forgotten under the GDPR
Because the woman was able to be identified from the photographs, they constitute “personal data” as defined by Article 4 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under Article 17 GDPR, data subjects have the right in certain circumstancesto compel the erasure of personal data concerning him or her.
For example, if the data was originally collected or used because the individual gave their consent, and that consent is subsequently withdrawn, the company may honour the request for deletion (Article 17(1)(b)). However, a company can also use a “counter attack” if an exception applies. Importantly for news and media agencies, if keeping the data is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, they may be able to refuse the request and keep the data (Article 17(3)(a)).
Are journalists under threat from privacy lawyers?
Blatchford explained that although they are now considered “stock images,” they were originally “news” photos and should not have been removed. By deleting the photos, Alamy “are censoring the news. I’m incensed that someone can influence news journalism and censor the past where clearly if photographs are taken in public, with the full consent of participants they can turn around and say ‘sorry, that’s not news’ later. This sets a precedent for anybody to walk up to a news organisation and say I don’t like the pictures of me. Journalists will then start feeling the threat of lawyers.”
In a statement to the Press Gazette, Alamy’s director of community Alan Capel said the images were submitted as news four years ago, but moved 48 hours later to the stock collection. “Therefore we are surprised that this is deemed to be ‘censoring the news.’ As per our contract with our contributors, we can remove any images from our collection if we see a valid reason to do so.”
Privacy and press freedom have long been considered competing interests, but that’s not to say that striking an appropriate balance between the two is impossible.
On some level, I do sympathise with the photographer. I also struggle to buy Alamy’s argument that the images are not “news content” and are now “stock images.” The classification of an image should be based on its context, purpose and subject matter – not the time that has elapsed since the event, nor the label attributed to it on a website.
Stock images are, by definition, professional photographs of common places, landmarks, nature, events or people. By contrast, the Oxford Trashing photos are attributed to a specific time (May), place (Oxford), category of people (students), and event (celebrating the end of exams). They are popular for several reasons. Firstly, they illustrate a charming and comical juxtaposition. Although these students attend one of the oldest and most prestigious Universities in the world, they are – after all – entitled to a bit of fun. Secondly, Trashing has received increased press attention in recent years, as students have become subject to complaints fines, disciplinary action, and even police enforcement. These images clearly show, in ways that words alone cannot, matters of public interest.
In this particular instance however, I think Alamy have made the right decision in deleting the images.
Although the Press Gazette does not name the woman, it does note she is “a marketing director in New York.” It’s entirely plausible that she has valid concerns that the images of her participating in Trashing may negatively impact her reputation and career, or otherwise cause some sort of harm or embarrassment.
She claims that “there was no consent given to publish or sell my photos anywhere. I am not a model nor have given permission to any photographers to take photos of me to publicly display or to sell. This was a complete breach of privacy.” This contradicts what the email records show, but even if she had lawfully consented to the photographs being taken at the time, she is entirely within her rights to now withdraw consent.
On balance, Alamy probably has dozens – if not hundreds – of images from the 2014 Trashing at Oxford. The likelihood that the images of this woman in particular are somehow especially newsworthy is minimal. Had Alamy refused to delete the photos, the woman would have been entitled to raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office. ICO enforcement action can include injunctions, sanctions, or monetary fines. Furthermore, Alamy would risk becoming known as an organisation that doesn’t care about privacy laws, thereby damaging its reputation.
Contrary to Blatchford’s concerns, it is doubtful that an organisation would delete a genuinely newsworthy image, simply because someone doesn’t like how they look. The right to be forgotten is not an absolute right to be purged from history, but a right to regain control of how information about you appears online.