Report comment

No debate - or rather exchange of views - will resolve anything about whether Brexit is or is not a good idea, and what the consequences will be, good or ill. The debate is far too polarised for that. It is striking, and always has been, that Brexit is one of those subjects which it seems impossible to discuss rationally: witness the in/out arguments by politicians before the referendum, which (on both sides) would have disgraced a class of 14 year olds.

What was especially striking (to me) was that no politician, including those arguing for exit, seemed to have a clue what to do when the result came in. We are left with Mrs May's gnomic utterance that 'Brexit means Brexit.'

Since this journal is largely by and for lawyers, I would hope that discussion in its pages would focus on the legal points: from the legal process to the effects on the legal sector, whatever they may be, of the UK leaving the EU. As well as relative trivia (perhaps) such as Mr Soames raised, there are possible legal consequences in the form of: which EU inspired laws to keep or repeal; the possible impact of exit on the choice of English law in international contracts; the enforcement cross border of national judgments; extradition arrangements; human rights; substantial parts of employment law, etc etc. More generally, there is much in English law which has its origins in EU law or Directives: what will we/should we keep, and what jettison? Do we decide 'if it is EU origin it is bad' or do we consider each EU origin law in its full context before deciding? Either way, how is all this to be done? By whom? Can it be done before notice under Article 50 takes effect, or only after?

There are plenty of serious and interesting questions raised by Brexit, which it could be interesting and productive to discuss intelligently and it is a shame that instead legal commentary in these pages is stuck on the same level as a 14 year old schoolboys' balloon debate.