header-logo header-logo

07 June 2018
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Commons faces Brexit marathon

Uphill struggle for May in pushing through EU Withdrawal Bill

MPs are preparing for a marathon session in the House of Commons next week as prime minister Theresa May attempts to overturn all 15 Lords defeats on the Brexit Bill in one single day.

May will try to push the EU (Withdrawal) Bill through the Commons in a 12-hour sitting on Tuesday, despite the Bill taking 20 days to pass through the House of Lords where 15 amendments were made on key areas. Peers voted for Britain to stay in the single market with freedom of movement of people, for the prime minister to report on her effort to secure a customs union, and for a ‘meaningful vote’ on the Brexit deal.

One MP said privately last week that he thought the PM may be deliberately engineering a showdown with her Brexiteer backbenchers to show them that, even if they get rid of her, they still don’t have the numbers in Parliament for their preferred ‘hard’ version of Brexit.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ columnist, said: ‘The Lords has considered at length and in Committee and on the floor of the House many of the issues that arise from the Withdrawal Bill.

‘It would be disappointing if the Withdrawal Bill is treated simply as a political football by the Commons in the battle between party factions on both sides of the House. The Supreme Court handed power to Parliament in the Article 50 judgment. It did so because the membership of the European Union bestows rights on citizens. It is with those rights that the House of Commons toys.

‘One amendment from the Lords, for instance, relates to the retention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights after Brexit. This is a vital constitutional document providing individual rights that are not otherwise guaranteed. Its retention is all important and deserves proper consideration by the House.’

Issue: 7796 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll