header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A Chinese takeaway (Pt 4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
05 August 2016 / Tim Malloch
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail
nlj_7696_malloch_1

Why have the dynamics of the Hinkley Point C negotiation changed since the EU referendum, asks Tim Malloch
    • Unless and until the UK specifically rules out joining the EEA as part of the Brexit process it would be prudent to assume that the existing EU rules on state aid will continue to apply to the UK. Accordingly, Brexit does not mean saying auf wiedersehen to the Austrian state aid challenge to HPC or indeed to similar state aid challenges to any future nuclear projects in the UK.

    Before the EU referendum result, the UK government appeared to be driving the pace of the Hinkley Point C (HPC) negotiations. At the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee (the ECCSC) hearing on 24 May 2016 Andrea Leadsom, then a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) energy minister, stated that the UK government wanted EDF to take a final investment decision as soon as possible (see Question 211 Oral evidence: UK New Nuclear: Status Update, HC 176, 24 May 2016).

    Following

    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

    Read All
    Sponsored by
    University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

    University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

    Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

    mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

    mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

    Regional firm strengthens corporate team with partner hire

    Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

    Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

    Commercial property team expands with trio of appointments

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: What judging really demands
    Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
    NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
    The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
    NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
    From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
    NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
    Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
    NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
    As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll