header-logo header-logo

Act in haste…

14 July 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail
nlj_7707_comment

If Brexit withdrawal cannot be reversed the UK is at risk of a seriously bad outcome, explains Michael Zander QC​

The discussion about triggering withdrawal from the EU has so far concentrated mainly on the question whether it requires Parliamentary approval. Little attention has yet been given to an even more troubling question—if withdrawal is started, could it be withdrawn mid-process?

A possible reason for wanting to withdraw might be so serious a downturn in the UK’s overall economic position as to persuade the government that Brexit should not after all go ahead. A completely different reason would be realisation that the terms for withdrawal on offer from the EU were completely unacceptable, or worse, that withdrawal was about to take place without terms having been agreed.

The issue is explored by Jonathan Rickford, former legal academic and senior legal civil servant and Robert (Bob) Ayling, former legal civil servant and CEO of BA (“Brexit Referendum and Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union: A Legal Trap: the Need for Legislation”).

Once

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll