- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000239To what extent is EU company law harmonized? This article first makes the point that little progress has been made in the direction of company law uniformity within the EU. It then argues that, even leaving aside the question of whether it would be desirable to have a uniform EU company law, that outcome is simply impossible to achieve, due to interest group resistance and the variety in national meta-rules. Yet it concludes that, in a narrow meaning, European company laws have indeed been harmonized: European Member States company laws fit together, which may well be what harmonization, not only etymologically, is all about.ISBN: 0020-5893The UK’s recent vote for Brexit has sparked a fierce debate over the implications for the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the rest of the EU. So far, however, there has been relatively little discussion of the implications of Brexit for legal persons – that is, corporate citizens of the EU, which may also be profoundly affected by consequent changes. The ECJ’s 1999 decision in Centros made clear that the freedom of establishment protects the entitlement of corporate persons formed in one EU Member State to carry on their business in another Member State. Since then, many entrepreneurs in continental European countries have chosen to form companies in the UK, while still carrying on their business in their home country. What will the consequences of Brexit be for such companies?ISBN: 1566 7529DOI: 10.1093/oxrep/grx014Financial services constitute an important net export for the UK economy, for which the rest of the EU is the largest market. This paper considers the likely consequences of Brexit for this sector. A ‘soft’ Brexit, whereby the UK leaves the EU but remains in the single market, would be a lower-risk option for the City than other Brexit options, because it would enable financial services firms to continue to rely on regulatory passporting rights. Under a ‘hard’ Brexit scenario, where the UK leaves the single market, the UK might in principle be able to benefit from the EU’s third country ‘equivalence’ frameworks for financial services, but these are cumbrous and incomplete alternatives to passporting. UK firms would find it considerably more costly to export to the EU. This would also be a loss to the EU27, because the UK specializes in capital markets services for which the EU, over-reliant on banking, recognizes a need. However, much of this ‘UK’ activity is provided by subsidiaries of US-headquartered groups. In the event of hard Brexit, these firms may be able to compete just as effectively from New York as from London. If soft Brexit proves politically impossible, it seems highly desirable that the UK push for a transition period of continued EU membership pending at the very least completion of equivalence determinations and, more usefully, the conclusion of a suitable bilateral agreement.ISBN: 1460-2121Examines the debates about the proper scope for the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to EU Contract Law, provides an introduction to the essays in the volume, and concludes by arguing that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be used by the Court of Justice to provide foundations for a general EU contract law.ISBN: 978-1-78068-433-8Members and supporters of the British government say that the only constitutionally legitimate course of action over Brexit after the referendum is to press ahead with withdrawal from the European Union, even if that would entail the complete severance of all ties (which we normally call ‘hard Brexit’). A more sophisticated view of the constitution, however, shows that these more or less populist arguments are false. As the Supreme Court confirmed in the recent Gina Miller judgment, the constitution did not change with the June referendum. Parliament is still supreme and determines both ordinary legislation and constitutional change. In fact, if one examines closely the claim that the referendum entails hard Brexit, it becomes obvious that this claim is false as well. The referendum opened the door for one among four different possibilities. Which Brexit option—if any—the United Kingdom should take is a matter for Parliament now to decide, following the normal processes of democratic deliberation and representation.