header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 January 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7871 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

The EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill (No 2) (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
14747
Michael Zander on the final stages
  • Despite inflicting five defeats in the House of Lords, the Opposition accepted that the Government would overturn all the amendments and that they would have to accept it.
  • Royal Assent would be given in time for the Withdrawal Agreement to be considered by the European Parliament.

Until the Report stage in the House of Lords last Monday (January 20) the Government still hoped that its European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill would come back to the Commons unamended. But in the end the Lords decided there were issues on which they had to make a stand.

The Government does not command a majority in the Lords and the word had gone out from Ministers that amendments would not be welcomed. During the three days of the Committee stage in the Lords (14, 15,16 January) not a single amendment was put to a vote. Each proposer ran their proposition up the hill but then bottled and withdrew the amendment.

One reason

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll