header-logo header-logo

Do we have to leave the EU?

04 July 2016 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail
nlj_7706_comment_bindman

The final say on EU membership is & should be with Parliament, says Geoffrey Bindman QC

The referendum has not been a common feature of British political history and for good reason. It is a blunt instrument. The question it poses has to be simple and broad, but a yes or no response is an unreliable guide to policy on a complex and many-sided topic. The final say on EU membership is and should be with Parliament.

Odd as it may seem to many, the referendum result has no legal effect whatsoever. The European Referendum Act 2015 sets out the terms and conditions on which the referendum took place, but it does not impose any duty on Government or on Parliament to legislate. The Act is completely silent on the consequences of a vote either to leave or to remain.

Only twice previously has there been a referendum of the whole UK. In 1975 there was an overwhelming vote in favour of remaining in the European

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll