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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll