header-logo header-logo

23 January 2019
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit: deal or no deal?

Next steps might rebalance UK constitution & its workings forever

Innovation and some constitutional acrobatics could be required if Parliament takes over control of the Brexit process, according to a senior lawyer and Brexit commentator.

MPs have tabled a series of amendments ahead of the vote next week, when Prime Minister Theresa May will renew attempts to persuade the House of Commons to back her withdrawal deal.

They include Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Conservative Nick Boles’s request for a one-day debate on a bill requiring the Prime Minister to seek an Art 50 extension until the end of the year if MPs have not approved a Brexit deal by 26 February.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, meanwhile, has asked for six days of Brexit debate with backbenchers rather than the government in control.

Writing in this week’s NLJ, David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe & NLJ consultant editor, says: ‘Parliament is not particularly structured to draft legislation or to drive it through the process, which needs a governmental dynamic.

‘This is not its constitutional role, and it is difficult to see how this will work without innovative machinations of the speaker, whose own role as a neutral may also present constitutional problems.

‘Further, constitutionally the government retains the whip hand, reinforced by Parliament’s own legislation.’

Greene says such moves would ‘turn the legislative process on its head’.

He concludes: ‘Rejection of the prime minister’s proposals has, as she rightly said, put us into uncharted territory constitutionally. Where we go from here might rebalance the UK constitution and its workings forever.’

Meanwhile, the Bar has published its latest Brexit Paper, this time examining how environmental laws will be enforced after Brexit. It is authored by Bar Council EU Law Committee member Celina Colquhoun.

Currently, EU institutions can fine the UK for breaches of EU pollution limits or refer the UK to the European Court of Justice, forcing the government to take action. Post-Brexit, Colquhoun says, the new watchdog proposed by DEFRA, the Office of Environmental Protection, will have far less power.

Issue: 7825 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll