header-logo header-logo

23 June 2016
Issue: 7704 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

EU referendum: the UK decides…

Lawyers concerned over UK’s future post-Brexit

Whatever the result this week, the EU Referendum has stirred a cauldron of lawyers’ concerns—not least the issue of a post-Brexit bid for independence by Scotland.

In a series of articles published by Matrix Chambers, Countdown to the EU Referendum, Rhodri Thompson QC argues that post-Brexit the UK would have significantly reduced influence over the development of EU law. This “would amount in practice to a very substantial loss of control over the content of rules that would have to be observed within the UK…that might be regarded as a significant loss rather than gain in national sovereignty”.

Aidan O’Neill QC, also of Matrix Chambers, argues that the reason the UK’s membership of the EU has assumed central stage is “our asymmetric devolution”. O’Neill says: “The anxiety that is really being expressed here is about the status of England-unrepresented in either the British union or the EU.”

In the eventuality of a post-Brexit independent Scotland choosing to remain in the EU, “the holding of the new status of Scottish citizenship would bring with it the benefits of being an EU citizen”.

“For example, the siting of corporate headquarters in Edinburgh rather than London would be presented as allowing companies full access to the single European market which might be denied to those who choose to remain based now outside the EU in the rest of the UK.”

Meanwhile, Seamus Smyth, partner at Carter Lemon Camerons, warns that “Brexit will damage the pound for years”.

He says: “No-one knows what ‘gaining sovereignty’ will deliver. Less immigration? Hardly—if the UK is better off after Brexit it will be even more attractive, and we cannot patrol every inch of sea border—let alone the non-existent land border with Ireland—and the EU won’t help us.

“Less red tape? Hardly—in our digitised, risk-super-sensitive, insurance-strangled, society where seemingly only entitlement matters and contribution is ignored, the UK may be free to make laws without EU interference, but the influence of insurance, health and safety, Freedom of Information, Data Protection Act, and PC attitudes will be undiminished, EU or no EU.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll