header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 October 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit’s Super Saturday

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC analyses the events in Parliament on 19 October, and asks: what happens next?

19 October was the first Saturday sitting of Parliament since the Falklands War in 1982. The government’s hope was that the House of Commons would approve the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration brought back from last week’s EU Council meeting by an understandably well pleased Boris Johnson.

The prime minister began his statement just after 9.30am. He spoke for half an hour, commending the withdrawal agreement. There followed an hour and half of responses with contributions, many extremely critical, from 55 MPs, before the proceedings turned to the government’s motion.

Section 13(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (‘Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU’) provides that the withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if a minister of the crown has laid before each House:

(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached;

(ii) a copy of the withdrawal agreement; and

(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship.

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll