header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 August 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Peer reviewing Brexit

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7711_specialist_zander

In the first of an occasional series, Michael Zander reviews the House of Lords’ debate on Brexit
  • The House of Lords debated Brexit on 5 and 6 July 2016.
  • The debate last lasted just over 14 hours—115 peers took part.

The House of Lords’ Brexit debate, spread over two days, 5 and 6 July, was impressive—115 speeches, the great majority from peers who had voted “Remain”. The tone was mainly sombre with many speeches expressing dismay at the outcome of the referendum on 23 June —devastated, disillusioned, betrayed, hurt, angry, tragedy, disaster, were words used. I counted a total of only 10 speakers who positively welcomed the result.

There was much criticism of the way both sides had handled their campaigns and condemnation from all sides of the ugly racist speech and conduct that had been unleashed. A great number referred to the need to stay on the best possible terms with our European neighbours. Many speakers from all sides urged the government to confirm that EU nationals lawfully resident in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll