header-logo header-logo

Brexit: The rebels’ Bill to defeat no-deal

05 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
Michael Zander QC explains the current state of affairs playing out in Parliament

Tuesday’s government defeat in the House of Commons by 328 votes to 301 cleared the way for the rebels’ European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill to be rushed through all its stages before the end of the week. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent a no-deal exit from the EU, though whether it would do that is not clear.

The Bill states that unless a deal is reached with the EU or Parliament approves a no-deal Brexit by October 19, the government would be required to write to the EU seeking an extension to the Art 50 period until 31 January 2020.

The Bill indicates the wording of the letter that the prime minister would be required to send to the EU, with the proviso that if the European Council agrees to an extension to 31 January 2020, the prime minister would immediately have to accept that extension. If the European Council

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll