header-logo header-logo

23 October 2019
Issue: 7861 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

All Hallows Brexit unlikely

Ratification of Withdrawal Agreement Bill put on hold… for now 

EU leaders have indicated a Brexit extension will be granted, following the latest defeat for the government.

MPs voted 329-299 to move the prime minister’s withdrawal agreement bill to the second reading stage, where a number of amendments are likely to be sought, including membership of a customs deal and putting the agreement to the public in a remain versus withdrawal agreement referendum.

Following this victory, however, the prime minister’s hopes of a Halloween Brexit were all but dashed within the hour when MPs rejected by 322-308 votes his accelerated timetable to push the 110-page Bill through Parliament within three days. Prime Minister Johnson immediately paused the Bill, reneging on an earlier threat to abandon it altogether.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Commission, later that evening indicated an extension to the Art 50 process would be granted, tweeting: ‘Following PM @BorisJohnson’s decision to pause the process of ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in order to avoid a no-deal #Brexit, I will recommend the EU27 accept the UK request for an extension. For this I will propose a written procedure.’

The prime minister had previously requested an extension to 31 January 2020, in compliance with the Benn Act (European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019).

Simon Parsons, formerly associate professor of law at Solent University, said the second reading of the withdrawal agreement bill would be ‘a historic moment in the Brexit saga’ and Boris Johnson ‘will now be able to say in the inevitable general election campaign that he has the right deal for the country’.

However, Sir Keir Starmer, shadow Brexit secretary, said the proposed withdrawal agreement, which only runs until the end of 2020, contains a ‘trapdoor’ to a no-deal Brexit.

Moreover, the prime minister has lost the support of the Democratic Unionist Party due to the agreement’s ‘border in the Irish sea’ and the revelation that Northern Ireland businesses will have to fill out export declaration forms when sending goods to Great Britain.

A general election could be called if two-thirds of MPs agree or if a vote of no confidence is passed and opposition MPs are unable to form an alternative government within two weeks.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll