header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Opinion , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit: The rebels’ Bill to defeat no-deal

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

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