I just trawled through Hansard in search of incisive comments on the executive power grabs in the latest Brexit bill. Sadly far less attention given than to fish or Erasmus. THREAD.

The only one anywhere close to target was by Clive Lewis @labourlewis. Bravo.

He abstained. /1

Amidst general approval for the government legislation, some pertinent remarks came from ex-PM @theresa_may. But sovereignty exercised by unaccountable unelected bureaucrat committees as per CTA are more than a quibble: they are a betrayal of Leave voters *and* Remainers. /2

@OwenPaterson, Con arch-Leaver, with reservations on the Committees, but rather softly expressed. /3

Kirsty Blackman, SNP, @KirstySNP pretty good and with further points on national Parliaments within UK, but makes the case for Indy not for the need to reform UK as a whole. /4

William Wragg @William_Wragg, Con, making a polite request that ministers should not rule by diktat, even as the implementation Act confers just that power. /5

A point by Margaret Beckett, Lab, @mp1mb, on bureaucracy in the CTA (without, unfortunately, emphasising the attendant diminution of Parliamentary sovereignty across a wide remit). /6

Several MPs complained about the limited time for scrutiny of the CTA and the implementation bill. A point of order by @DavidLinden in the House Cttee stage, and a remark by Liz Saville Roberts @LSRPlaid make the point well. /7

This round-up must be concluded by correcting Con Tom Tugendhat @TomTugendhat, who argued that approval of the implementation bill would end "constitutional Kama Sutra." Rather, the effing of constitutional checks and balances will continue, but outside HoC, & less pleasurably./8

Legal Twitter has been rather good at pointing this out. @davidallengreen's @law_and_policy blog always insightful. If anyone has seen good coverage in the Press, please add below -- so far, I haven't. /9 ENDS