'Long and tedious' report a 'badge of honour', says pro-EU solicitor
Debate between lawyer campaign groups heats up after release of detailed report
A group of lawyers campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU has labelled criticism from a rival group as a 'badge of honour'.
Kicking off its campaign, Lawyers - In for Britain released a report this month in support of EU membership. However, the document was denounced as being 'long and tedious' by its ideological opponents Lawyers for Britain.
Lawyers - In for Britain group leader John Davies, a Freshfields partner and competition lawyer, acknowledged there are different views to be had on the referendum debate but reiterated that the objective of the report was to allow the public to make an informed decision on the nation's future.
'We will wear the description "long and tedious" as a badge of honour,' Davies told SJ. 'We are a group of lawyers trying to contribute important information to a crucial debate and if in order to do that we have had to be long and tedious then so be it.'
The group's detailed document aims to educate the public on the benefits, misconceptions, and alternatives to the UK’s membership of the EU in key areas such as energy, the environment, transport, and national security.
However, Lawyers for Britain described the report as a 'tired rehash' of 'discredited economic claims by lawyers with no relevant expertise'.
'This long and tedious document is misleading in its use of statistics, depressing in its view of our own democracy and political system, and misleading in the way it suggests that David Cameron's renegotiation is "legally binding",' said the leave group's press release.
One of the criticisms levelled at the report centred on a finding that the benefit of the EU single market to consumers is worth 'in the region of £3,300 a year per household'.
Davies accepted that various reports had disputed the correct figure and stressed that his own group's findings had recognised the amount was 'difficult to quantify'.
'We have looked at those reports, we have seen what the Bank of England has said about those reports,' he said.
'We have concluded that number is somewhere in the middle between the people who believe that the benefits are greater than that and the people who believe that the benefits are negative.
'As a group of lawyers where you have got different evidence on a particular point, you have to take a view on balance. We have set out what we believe to be the key reliable evidence.'