header-logo header-logo

11 November 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7910 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Withdrawal (dis)agreement (Part 4)

31569
Michael Zander believes that the Government will be forced to climb down on the Internal Market Bill

In brief

  • A deal with the EU would enable the Government to drop Part V without the embarrassment of having to give in to the Lords.

As predicted, the Government was heavily defeated (twice) in Monday’s House of Lords debate on the UK Internal Market Bill—433 to 165 and 407 to 148. The two votes removed the widely criticised Part V of the Bill giving the Government the power to break international law and ousting intervention by the courts.

Governments are familiar with defeats in the House of Lords, but there are defeats and defeats. This one is different. The Commons will, of course, reject the Lords amendments. The Bill will go back to the Lords where Part V will again be voted down. So far, so fairly normal. There is no limit to the permitted number of such exchanges. So, if this ‘ping-pong’ continues, at some point the Government will have

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll