header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 September 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Withdrawal (dis)agreement Part 2

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
28041
The Internal Market Bill—how will it end? Michael Zander considers whether the Lords will allow the Bill to go through

In brief

  • Clauses that are admitted to authorise a breach of international law could not be said to be covered by the Salisbury Convention.

The controversial clauses—breaking international law and barring judicial review—were duly approved by the Commons by large majorities in the Committee stage of the Bill on Monday. But will they be rejected by the Lords and if so, will the Lords insist, preventing passage of the Bill under the Parliament Act?

The Government will have been seriously discomfited by Mrs Theresa May’s powerful speech (see opposite page) denouncing the offending clauses. (‘I can say to the Minister that, in my view, clauses 41 to 45 have no place in this Bill.’) Her speech will deservedly be quoted over and over again in the Lords.

Sir Robert (Bob) Neill, Conservative, Chairman of the Justice Select Committee, told the Commons he was satisfied by the Government’s amendment requiring

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