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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll