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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll