header-logo header-logo

Peers blast Brexit Bill

01 February 2018
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Pressure grows for Labour to back a soft Brexit

The Brexit Bill began its second reading in the House of Lords this week, with a record 188 Peers lined up to speak, in the wake of a committee report branding the Bill ‘constitutionally unacceptable’ and leaked government analysis predicting Brexit will harm the economy.

A record 188 Peers were lined up to speak in the debate, which began as government analysis, leaked to Buzzfeed News, predicted weakening economic growth by 8% in the event of ‘no deal’, 5% if a free trade agreement is reached and 2% with continued single market membership. Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the Labour Party leadership to back the case for staying in the single market and customs union. Campaign group Open Britain, which has published a report in which MPs, trade unionists and academics put the case for a soft Brexit entitled ‘Busting the Lexit Myths’, urged Jeremy Corbyn to ‘come off the fence’.

Peers may also be influenced by the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s devastating report this week on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. It warns the current form of the Bill risks undermining legal certainty, gives overly-broad powers to ministers and may have significant consequences for the relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who chairs the committee, said: ‘We acknowledge the scale, challenge and unprecedented nature of the task of converting existing EU law into UK law, but as it stands this Bill is constitutionally unacceptable.

‘In our two previous reports we highlighted the issues this raised and we are disappointed that the government has not acted on a number of our recommendations.’

The committee’s interim report, in September, warned that the Bill ‘weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency’; that its capacity to undermine legal certainty was ‘considerable’; and that it was ‘highly complex and convoluted in its drafting and structure’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll