header-logo header-logo

17 January 2019
Issue: 7824 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit—what next?

Vote against PM’s deal says nothing about what sort of deal MPs would approve

The ‘door is now open’ to a wider range of options than Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal, no deal or no Brexit, according to Hugh Mercer QC, chair of the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group.

Following the historic 432-202 defeat of May’s Brexit deal and the Opposition’s motion of no confidence, the prime minister (pictured) is due to return to Parliament within three days with new proposals.

David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP, said: ‘The vote on the Prime Minister’s proposals and their rejection throw us into an even more uncertain period. The size of the vote against the proposals indicates that it is going to be very difficult to secure consensus. In order to revoke the Notice, the PM will need primary legislation. To delay the process she probably does not need the agreement of Parliament in law. That permission already exists or is subject to Crown prerogative. She will need the unanimous agreement of the EU Council.

‘The problem is that Parliament’s ability to drive the process is limited unless [Speaker John] Bercow pulls a rabbit out of a hat. Also extending the period under the Article 50 Notice comes up against the European Parliament elections. If we remain in we must participate in those which will be odd indeed when we are seeking to leave. In short, it’s a mess.’

Hogan Lovells partner Charles Brasted said: ‘Due to Parliamentary arithmetic, the opposition’s vote of no confidence is unlikely to succeed. If it does, however, then a general election will follow unless a new government can be formed and endorsed by the House within 14 days. With a legal minimum campaign period of five weeks, a newly-elected government would not be in place before the beginning of March at the earliest. In the meantime, the clock keeps ticking to 29 March.

‘Like businesses and citizens in the UK and across Europe, preparations for no deal will have to continue apace, on the part of the UK, the EU and all of the EU27 member states.’

Brasted pointed out that, while MPs had united in rejecting the deal, their vote said nothing about what sort of deal they would approve.

Issue: 7824 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

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
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll