header-logo header-logo

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

Peers blast Brexit Bill

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

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

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

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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll