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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
back-to-top-scroll