header-logo header-logo

Lawyers campaign for IN

15 March 2016
Issue: 7691 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers—In for Britain, a group of more than 250 pro-EU lawyers, has published a report setting out the reasons for remaining in the EU.

It argues that benefits include easier and cheaper transport and travel, more affordable energy, a cleaner and healthier environment and guaranteed access to the single market.

While acknowledging the EU “is not perfect”, it warns that misconceptions are “playing a pivotal role in the debate”, and sets out myth-busting information. On the amount of regulation from Brussels, for example, it says the House of Commons Library estimates that less than 7% of UK primary legislation and less than 15% of UK secondary legislation make direct or passing references to EU law.

Furthermore, “if the UK were to leave the EU, it is likely that most EU regulation would need to be replaced rather than repealed in order for UK goods and services to be accepted in other EU countries”.

On migration, it says the largest category of migrants come from outside the EU, and that EU nationals can be refused entry on the grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”.

It explores some alternatives to membership, but argues that the UK would need to follow EU rules to have access to the EU market, and that the EU gives automatic access to free trade deals with 50 other non-EU countries. It says that simply relying on the UK’s World Trade Organisation rights would leave UK goods subject to tariffs of between 4.5 and 15%.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner John Davies, Chairman of Lawyers – In For Britain, says: “Our conclusion is that the UK is stronger, safer and better off in the EU. The words I hear the most from those who are undecided are ‘give us the facts’.  We have gathered together what we believe are the most reliable facts that led us to this conclusion.”

Davies and the other members of the group are campaigning as individuals not as representatives of their law firms, nearly all of whom maintain a neutral stance on the issue.

Issue: 7691 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll