header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 May 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7838 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit: is MPs taking control a good or a bad thing?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Zander considers the extremely controversial EU (Withdrawal) (No 5) Bill

  • Many argued that MPs taking control of the legislative process set a dangerous precedent; but is it what the exceptional circumstances of Brexit demanded?

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019, which started as the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 5) Bill, will surely figure in the next edition of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice . The Bill was rushed through all its parliamentary stages. Though very unusual, that has happened before. But what was unprecedented was to have a Private Members Bill running to a timetable set by backbenchers that reached the statute book despite the opposition of the government.

No such thing has ever occurred in the more than 100 years since 1902 when the House of Commons Standing Order giving precedence to government business was first established. The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s 2009 report on fast-track legislation did not even mention

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll