header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 October 2016 / Andrew Eaton , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7719 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Making a success of Brexit

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7719_brasted

How can the “conscious uncoupling” of the EU & UK legal systems be achieved, ask Charles Brasted & Andrew Eaton
  • Brexit poses fundamental questions for the UK’s unwritten constitution & legislative framework.

Constitutional law has so far been central to the public debate on the implications of the EU referendum result.

One constitutional issue that has received much attention is the, now infamous, Art 50 debate. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which is the legal mechanism for a member state to leave the EU, provides that it is for the UK to “decide” to leave the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” and to notify the European Council of its decision. Early rumours that the prime minister might trigger it accidentally or that the EU might force the UK to give notice immediately have been dispelled. The question remains: what are those constitutional requirements and who is entitled to make the decision?

The government has maintained that it is entitled to trigger

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