Brexit’s Great Repeal Bill is a never-attempted ‘massive problem’: is Oxbridge prof stating the obvious to Lords’ committee?

There was also a lot of talk about Henry VIII clauses and Acquis Communautaire

parliament

The House of Lords’ Constitutional Committee, which includes Article 50 hero Lord Pannick QC, heard from three Oxbridge law professors this week on the challenges faced in bringing in the Great Repeal Bill, aka the legislation which will realise Brexit.

Professors Paul Craig (Oxford), John Bell (Cambridge) and Alison Young (Oxford) appeared unanimous in their view that in terms of a legislative process, Brexit is “a massive problem”. Professor Craig — who spoke to Legal Cheek about the aftermath of the Brexit vote — told the committee that it was a question of scale: “size matters here…. no one has ever attempted this kind of manoeuvre before.”

From a legislative point of view, the bill has to grapple with how to translate Acquis Communautaire (which, as all EU law students know, means accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body of European law) into UK law in the next two years, the committee heard.

Professor Craig speculated (though didn’t believe it likely) that it could be a short bill which would be a “window through which the entirety of Acquis Communautaire is brought into UK law with the detail to be worked out afterwards.”

Professor Paul Craig
Professor Paul Craig

There was also bemusement on what should be parliament’s response if the government proposes to use wide-ranging Henry VIII clauses (which gives it the power to amend, repeal or improve legislation without oversight or scrutiny from parliament) to convert EU law into UK law, which it is likely to have to do given “the massive problem” it faces in purely practical terms.

Meanwhile, over in the House of Commons in a Justice Select Committee meeting, top lawyers were giving evidence on a related issue: the impact of Brexit on the legal services industry.

This MP-based committee heard that without freedom of movement of workers and with the UK’s exit from the single market, the industry could be in tatters. “Nothing else of much importance is going to be salvaged,” was Andrew Langdon QC, chair of the Bar Council’s, dramatic prediction.

Alongside Langdon, three others bemoaned the fate of the legal services industry, which generated £25.7 billion for the UK economy in 2015 and contributed £3.6 billion in net export value to the balance of payments. These were Simon Gleeson, financial services guru and partner at Clifford Chance, Alison Hook, co-founder of Hook Tangaza, and Law Society top dog Robert Bourns.

The Lord Chancellor Liz Truss has, however, been keen to be seen to be active in defending the sector. In a City-based lunch recently she spoke of a “bold and bright future” for legal services and stated:

We are already working to make sure we get the best possible deal for the profession.

The jury is out on this one: though legal services was highlighted as an example of a “highly competitive” sector by Prime Minister Theresa May in the government’s new industrial strategy green paper, it is not one of the five sectors which will receive special government support. (The lucky winners of that are: life sciences, electric cars, industrial digitalisation, the creative and nuclear industries.)

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here.

33 Comments

Just Anonymous

So what?

I agree this will probably be complex and probably very difficult. But that only gets us to the conclusion that we need to exercise great care and skill when doing it, in order to make sure we get it right.

If you’re trying to insinuate that because it’s so difficult, we therefore shouldn’t do it at all – sorry, that decision has already been made. We’re leaving. If you don’t like that decision, fair enough. I’m not sure I do. But not liking a decision doesn’t give us the right to whinge like children and ignore it.

(20)(5)
Anonymous

You are gambling with your futures, that’s all. I am glad I can just pack my belongings and leave this country at any time, but many can’t. Naive, very naive.

(10)(13)
Just Anonymous

Irrelevant. That argument was quite properly made at the time of the referendum. The country heard it. The country (by a majority) rejected it.

It’s time you move on and accept you lost.

(14)(5)
Anonymous

Brexit means Brexit. Advisory referendum means advisory referendum? No.
Deception means deception. Truth means lie, lie means truth. It’s all flexible.

Will our children ever forgive us for this dismal, corrupted inheritance?

(0)(0)
Air Hair Lair

Ooh , the reasoned argument here is creating a frisson that has the hair on my back standing up!
We’re leaving, you lost , get over it?
Ok then. Your argument is too strong for me, and I got a GCE.

Hang on though, doesnt democracy just continue after advisory opinion polls?
May is wanting her hands on your laws so she can subvert them to suit her hard right plan! My pre ref question was always “you want your Law in the hands of the Tories?”
Don’t you think you might want some of those laws? Human rights , environment, pension protection? Human dignity for those earning under 100k?

I’ve seen the Express, in passing., never opened it, but without fact checking I began to believe EU causes river flooding, straight bananas , beer in litres unelected lawmakers, 250,000 immigrants a day, it is just a lie factory, you are fooled. If Brexit is good for you, well you must be very very rich. Everyone else is going to suffer.
I’ve been watching trials of drugs that will help my young son live and breathe, slowly get accepted in US, and EU. Our govt says too expensive, but I know we are EU, eventually law will prevail and he gets his treatment- oh but now we’ve had a vote with a 50/50 result, so that hope is gone. But I lost, so must not oppose the precious advisory result and stop my liberal whinging. Maybe you don’t have a life threatening condition which costs NHS money to keep you alive,so you might be ok.

(0)(0)
Pantman

But that only gets us to the conclusion that we need to exercise great care and skill when doing it…

Do we have a government that illustrates great care and skill? Have we ever had such a government?

Apart from anything else, the reason I voted to REMAIN in the EU was that the thought of the Tory lunatic fringe taking over the country and steering it away from the EU just didn’t bear contemplation. It seems that the great unwashed had no such foresight.

(0)(0)
Air Hair Lair

Not all the poor were leavers.
I think the Poorest people, the ones who grumbled about the EU and read the large print on the tabloid front page, the Tories are going to hammer them like never before.
The narrative will quickly change to ‘we told you, but the Will of The People had to prevail, so now you will be punished’
Will the educated middle class care? No, they will say ‘you bastards are responsible, my builder has gone back to Poland leaving the extension unfinished, Hsbc has Gone to France taking my job with them, strangely crime against property is rising ( underclass again, easy access through unfinished extension) the health service and social care is wrecked, we told you so, you suffer!’

(0)(0)
Other Family Memeber

Brexit is like a revolution, or a coup if you must. People spoke, motion set, time for the capable few to pick up the pieces and move on.

Failing that, there is always Art 49…

(2)(3)
Anonymous

It’s quite clear that by 2040 mainstream parties will be running election campaigns on the promise to take us back into the EU, and that the public will vote for them.

(6)(5)
SingaporeSwing

That will Ben basically impossible by then. Either the EU will cease to exist, or voters will baulknat accepting the euro single currency.

(2)(1)
Pantman

Kind of depends on the state of the nation and the global economy at that point. Might be happy to dump sterling if it’s fallen into the same class as the lira, pesata or drachma (that’s why the Italians, Spanish and Greeks want the euro, despite the hardship it allegedly causes).

(0)(0)
Not Amused

I think that it is important to be clear on how the Euro works and why nation states want it. It is all about borrowing. Switching to the Euro means that you, as a country, can suddenly borrow much more money than you could when you were tied to your old currency.

Why would a nation state want to borrow?

It wouldn’t. But the democratically elected government of said nation would. By borrowing the state can create a mini economic bubble. The illusion of sudden prosperity can be created and with luck the elected politician can ride out the wave before the inevitable crash. They then aren’t responsible for the new debt.

This is the story of almost every new Eurozone member. It is also why the Euro needs to admit new members. It is why Goldman Sachs are paid large amounts of money to pretend that new countries qualify for the Euro. It is why in the middle of the last Greek debt crisis (the new one is coming soon) the Eurozone admitted Latvia.

Effectively the Euro is a form of giant Ponzi scheme. It is why it will probably fail.

(0)(1)
Pantman

Obviously that is the sceptical view. The alternative (but not ‘alt’) view is that the euro gives these economies a stability that they never had in the past. A glance at the instability and inflation levels of the currencies I previously mentioned should persuade most people.

At the end of the day the Greek people voted to retain the euro as their currency – so that they could have stability (if accompanied by pain) in their economy. The alternative is to reintroduce their own currency and let inflation take care of the debt.

Of course, you are right, the euro gives these governments the ability to borrow. But that is, to a certain extent, because those governments are restricted in what they can do to avoid the debts they incur, and because they have more stable economies. This is a side effect of the euro, stability (and transactional stability) is its raison d’etre.

Why is Latvia joining the euro a bad thing?

(0)(0)
Pantman

Effectively the Euro is a form of giant Ponzi scheme. It is why it will probably fail.

Immigration is a giant ponzi scheme.

(0)(0)
Air Hair Lair

Interesting point there about the sudden economic miracle of the Euro.
I saw it happen in 2001 in Ireland . No investment for decades before, then suddenly everyone has a new car, new house . Most kept them.
Greece, well we aren’t Greece are we? Why’d we want to be Greece?
If Greece is going to have another financial crash , could be bad, if they were not in the fkin EU! Greece might get bailed again- well WHO IS GOING TO RESCUE US THEN? Because one little murmur like Northern Rock or Bank of Scotland caused the whole house of cards to fall 9 years ago, well this is everything- bankers are the new Steelworkers. Toyota , Nissan, Rolls Royce, even quarries and brake pad manufacturers in my town are owned by other countries who need that free trade market.

(0)(0)
Trumpenkrieg

Instead of sucking it up and getting on with it, these whiners are going to carry on whining into the notification, negotiation timetable, Brexit itself, and beyond. It’s revealing of just how much they hate this country, and the notion of countries in general that they won’t play ball and advocate for a Brexit that embodies their values.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(7)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
Trumpenkrieg

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)
Air Hair Lair

Trumpenkreig, you got modded off again for probably some kind of offensive comment, that aint no way to get attention. Come over here and have a hug.

When brexit fails, let me tell you,it won’t be so bad for you. No lefty Liberal snowflakes are going to do a damn thing to you. Gays will marry each other, and why would it bother you, don’t bother me. The italian hairdresser will still be here,he don’t scare me , certainly shouldn’t bother you, not with your haircut. Hard working white folks with a different accent to you will harvest the crops, why that bother you? You going to do it? For minimum wage less agency fee and accommodation? Some refugees will wash your car, four of them, working in all weathers and you will give them a five pound note. Tell me why that upsets you so much.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Lol. You sound like a Scots nationalist.

Y DO U H8 SCOTLAND?!?!?!

(0)(0)
Air Hair Lair

Trumpenkrieg, you again me hearty!
What’s that , suck it up , stop whinging.
I do wonder why you come here- the real Leave voters , my neighbours and relatives, most don’t use internet, for reasons of fear, or age , or poverty, or poor reading skills. Even the ones who do don’t go trolling on Legal Cheek, why would they ? They are blissfully saying ‘we won, foreigners go home, everything continues the same,German cars , French Cheese, they won’t give us a bad deal’ they ain’t even angry.
You angry Breitbart types are frightened little Nazis. Brexit can never happen because it is countrycide. Article 50 , 2 year negotiations 50 million of our devalued beautiful English Pounds to leave, can’t happen. We can’t function as a tax haven, Ireland starts a war, scotland leaves us to it, and for what? For what single benefit? I’m not upset any more, because Brexit, my shiny headed friend ,will not happen.

(0)(0)
Air Hair Lair

I couldn’t get my head round that figure it’s fifty BILLION pounds- take that from Nhs efficiency and disabled benefit cuts. I did say cuts

(0)(0)
Fan of the Doug

And why is Professor Michael Dougan not being given a voice in this????

(4)(0)
Trumpenkrieg

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Reported this to LC, but its anti-semitic allusion is obviously too well disguised for them.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Would require a knowledge of Shakespeare and discredited historical scientific theories.

(0)(0)
I don't believe it

Or … because it’s difficult, DO do it? Charge of the Light Brigade logic? It is not the level of difficulty that should decide an action, but whether the deed is worth doing at all anyway. The decision requires an unemotional, evidence-based analysis of cost, effort and benefit – the sort of rigorous examination for which a binary referendum is woefully inappropriate.
Hence the appalling mess we are in now.

Brexit would have failed any test of useful purpose before it left the starting blocks, which is why it needed not just an encyclopaedia of lies and ‘respectable’ figures to tell them, but so many fake emotional triggers – nostalgia, patriotism, fear of foreigners, out-of-touch elitist others – plus the gutter press firmly in pocket to secure that ‘overwhelming’ 3.8% victory.

The Brexit wonderland fantasy is over: Article 50 is invoked. We are playing with real money now and all the talk is of minimising the economic damage. The deceivers will be exposed with every passing week. Watch, learn … and weep.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.