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

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
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
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
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

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll