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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll