header-logo header-logo

EU referendum: the UK decides…

23 June 2016
Issue: 7704 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll