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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll