header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 July 2016 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Do we have to leave the EU?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll