header-logo header-logo

Taking back control over retained EU law

11 November 2022 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail
100244
Michael Zander KC reports on the Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill
  • The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, in its current form, provides for ministers to revoke or modify non-statutory retained EU law.
  • It contains a sunset provision of 31 December 2023 (which can be postponed, but not beyond 23 June 2026).
  • There are concerns as to whether government departments will be able to consider 2,400 legislative provisions before the end of next year.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill had its second reading in the Commons on 25 October—the day that Rishi Sunak became prime minister, and the day too that Jacob Rees-Mogg, the minister in charge of the Bill, resigned.

‘Retained’ EU law (REUL) was the way Theresa May’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 dealt with EU law post-Brexit. It was to continue with statutory effect unless and until amended or repealed by legislation.

The current Bill provides for ministers to revoke or modify non-statutory REUL through secondary

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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