header-logo header-logo

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

Lawyers campaign for IN

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“if the UK were to leave the EU, it is likely that most EU regulation would need to be replaced rather than repealed in order for UK goods and services to be accepted in other EU countries”.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

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