header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 November 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7910 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Withdrawal (dis)agreement (Part 4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll