header-logo header-logo

Chaos & confusion reign in Westminster

05 September 2019
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
Fears of a no-deal Brexit mounted this week during a tumultuous session in Parliament. 

The prime minister lost his majority and his first vote as backbench MPs seized control of the order paper and introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill.

Michael Zander QC, Emeritus Professor, LSE, said: ‘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 prime minister will opt for an election rather than ask for a Brexit extension, if the Bill passes, but needs the agreement of two-thirds of MPs to do so.

Writing in NLJ this week, Zander said: ‘At the time of writing there was a further question—would the Bill have Queen’s Consent? This is required for any bill that affects the royal prerogative. Queen’s Consent is required to be signified after the third reading in the House of Commons. It is given by a minister after authority has been obtained from the Queen on application by a Privy Counsellor.’

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