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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll