header-logo header-logo

Peers blast Brexit Bill

01 February 2018
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Pressure grows for Labour to back a soft Brexit

The Brexit Bill began its second reading in the House of Lords this week, with a record 188 Peers lined up to speak, in the wake of a committee report branding the Bill ‘constitutionally unacceptable’ and leaked government analysis predicting Brexit will harm the economy.

A record 188 Peers were lined up to speak in the debate, which began as government analysis, leaked to Buzzfeed News, predicted weakening economic growth by 8% in the event of ‘no deal’, 5% if a free trade agreement is reached and 2% with continued single market membership. Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the Labour Party leadership to back the case for staying in the single market and customs union. Campaign group Open Britain, which has published a report in which MPs, trade unionists and academics put the case for a soft Brexit entitled ‘Busting the Lexit Myths’, urged Jeremy Corbyn to ‘come off the fence’.

Peers may also be influenced by the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s devastating report this week on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. It warns the current form of the Bill risks undermining legal certainty, gives overly-broad powers to ministers and may have significant consequences for the relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who chairs the committee, said: ‘We acknowledge the scale, challenge and unprecedented nature of the task of converting existing EU law into UK law, but as it stands this Bill is constitutionally unacceptable.

‘In our two previous reports we highlighted the issues this raised and we are disappointed that the government has not acted on a number of our recommendations.’

The committee’s interim report, in September, warned that the Bill ‘weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency’; that its capacity to undermine legal certainty was ‘considerable’; and that it was ‘highly complex and convoluted in its drafting and structure’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll