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

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
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 
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
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
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’
back-to-top-scroll