header-logo header-logo

12 August 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Peer reviewing Brexit

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll