header-logo header-logo

11 November 2022 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Taking back control over retained EU law

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 It was to continue with statutory effect unless and until amended or repealed by legislation.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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll