header-logo header-logo

Peer reviewing Brexit

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

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll