header-logo header-logo

21 October 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit’s Super Saturday

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

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
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
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
back-to-top-scroll