Ministers braced for string of defeats in Lords battle

SENIOR peers last night threatened to scupper Theresa May’s flagship Brexit legislation – claiming it was ‘constitutionally unacceptable’.

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which has cleared the Commons, translates 40 years of EU regulations on to the British statute book so that they will continue to operate after the UK leaves in March next year.

But the cross-party House of Lords constitution committee, chaired by Tony Blair’s ex-chief whip Baroness Taylor, said it was ‘fundamentally flawed… in multiple ways’.

The Bill begins its passage through the Lords tomorrow, when it is expected to receive a mauling from Remainers.

The Government, which has no Lords majority, is braced for a string of defeats. In its report, the Lords committee claims the Bill’s use of so-called Henry VIII powers, allowing ministers to change laws with only minimal scrutiny, would give ‘far greater latitude’ than was acceptable.

The report also calls for a greater role for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Britain has left the EU. Theresa May has made exiting the jurisdiction of the ECJ a ‘red line’ in negotiations with Brussels.

Her withdrawal deal allows only a minimal ECJ role after Brexit, which will diminish to nothing. Baroness Taylor 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.’

Ex-Labour cabinet minister Lord Adonis has already vowed to ‘sabotage Brexit’ in the Lords. Yesterday, he likened Brexit to the Second World War, saying: ‘We don’t “accept” that the “war is over” because it is not over. The fall of Singapore was not the end of the war: When the Brits emerged from the bushes, they went on to win. Thank God.’ Tory MP Damien Moore said his attitude ‘shows complete contempt for the verdict of the British people’.

Separately, the Lords EU energy and environment sub-committee warned Brexit could push up energy bills. Labour sources indicated the party’s peers would not ultimately seek to block the new laws.

Comment – Page 16