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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll