Brexit

Brexit

Following a national referendum, the UK withdrew its membership from the EU on 31 January 2020. The EU and UK domestic legal landscape has continued to change throughout the withdrawal process, transition/implementation period and beyond.

The UK is now in the post-transition/implementation phase of Brexit. Brexit-related research is still relevant as the implementation of Brexit-related policy, agreements and legislation remains ongoing after the event.

We are reviewing our content on the basis of information available and keeping it under regular review. In the meantime, this subtopic contains background reading, commentary and analysis on this subject and links to related guidance and policy documents.

EU referendum

On 23 June 2016, the UK held a referendum on its membership of the EU. In accordance with the European Union Referendum Act 2015 (EURA 2015), voters were asked:

‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?’

On 24 June 2016, the Chief Counting Officer for the EU referendum confirmed the result:

•
51.9% of votes (17,410,742) were cast in favour of 'Leave'
•
48.1% of votes (16,141,241) were cast in favour of 'Remain'

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

UK Supreme Court announces Lord Reed's retirement as President

The UK Supreme Court has announced that its President, Lord Reed of Allermuir, will retire on 10 January 2027, creating a vacancy for which the Lord Chancellor is expected to convene an independent selection commission under statutory rules. Lord Reed, who became a Justice in 2012, Deputy President in 2018 and President in 2020, has overseen the Court’s legal and administrative work, promoted international judicial cooperation, supported sittings outside London and reinstated the practice of judges from Judicial Committee of the Privy Council jurisdictions sitting on appeals. In his retirement statement he reflected on his service to the UK and Privy Council jurisdictions. His career includes qualification as both advocate and barrister, extensive civil and criminal practice, 13 years as a senior judge in Scotland, service as an ad hoc judge of the European Court of Human Rights and his role as High Steward of Oxford University.

Public Law weekly highlights—15 January 2026

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of Public Law. These highlights include the latest updates on Brexit, constitutional and administrative law, judicial review, equality and human rights, public procurement, subsidy control and State aid, public sector contracts, projects and infrastructure, information law and other public law news. This edition also features the latest edition of the Public Law case law quarterly.

Decision to ban Israeli fans from Birmingham match partly based on undisclosed police reliance on AI 'fake match'

The Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Craig Guildford, has written to the Chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Dame Karen Bradley, admitting that a decision to ban Israeli fans from a major football match in Birmingham was partly based on evidence about a non-existent previous match in the UK, generated by use of Microsoft Copilot. The Chief Constable had previously told the Committee that the error was not the result of using AI. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that she no longer has confidence in him.

SSHD’s unlawful conduct at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre breached the ‘systems duty’ under Article 3 ECHR—R(AH) v Home Secretary

Public Law analysis: This case dealt with two claims for judicial review brought by individuals detained at the notorious Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. Under Article 3 ECHR, the Home Secretary has an obligation to put in place a legislative and regulatory system of protection (the ‘systems duty’). The court considered the operation at Brook House of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the mechanism by which vulnerable detainees are reviewed by a medical practitioner. Mrs Justice Jefford found that the Home Office’s failure to produce a Rule 35 report with respect to the claimants in this case was demonstrative of systemic failures at Brook House which constituted a breach of the ‘systems duty’. That duty extended to ensuring that the system in place is working. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.