header-logo header-logo

12 August 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Peer reviewing Brexit

nlj_7711_specialist_zander

In the first of an occasional series, Michael Zander reviews the House of Lords’ debate on Brexit

  • The House of Lords debated Brexit on 5 and 6 July 2016.
  • The debate last lasted just over 14 hours—115 peers took part.

The House of Lords’ Brexit debate, spread over two days, 5 and 6 July, was impressive—115 speeches, the great majority from peers who had voted “Remain”. The tone was mainly sombre with many speeches expressing dismay at the outcome of the referendum on 23 June —devastated, disillusioned, betrayed, hurt, angry, tragedy, disaster, were words used. I counted a total of only 10 speakers who positively welcomed the result.

There was much criticism of the way both sides had handled their campaigns and condemnation from all sides of the ugly racist speech and conduct that had been unleashed. A great number referred to the need to stay on the best possible terms with our European neighbours. Many speakers from all sides urged the government to confirm that EU nationals lawfully resident in this country would be able to stay. The unsuitability

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll