header-logo header-logo

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

Peers blast Brexit Bill

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

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