header-logo header-logo

May vote brings more chaos

12 December 2018
Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

PM stands ready to deliver on Brexit, if she gets backing in leadership campaign

Britain faced yet more Brexit woes this week as Conservative MPs attempted to trigger a leadership contest less than four months before Exit Day.

The required 48 letters were sent this week amid a wave of fury that Prime Minister Theresa May postponed the House of Commons vote on her Brexit deal. May said she stood ‘ready to finish the job’.

Meanwhile, calls for a second referendum escalated after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its Art 50 notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. The ruling, in Wightman & Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (Case C-621/18), backs Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s Advisory Opinion last week.

The ECJ rejected the arguments of the Council of Ministers and European Commission that the consent of all the other Member States was required for revocation. It ruled that the UK can choose to stay in the EU at any time while the treaties still apply, whether in the two-year period from official notification of Art 50 or in any extension of this period agreed with the European Council. The UK would need to make a decision to remain, taken in accord with our constitutional requirements and then duly notified to the President of the European Council.

Charles Brasted, partner at Hogan Lovells, said the ruling ‘put beyond doubt that, until the moment the UK signs a withdrawal agreement or leaves the EU with no deal on 29 March 2019, it can still stop Brexit, even in the face of opposition by the rest of the EU. 

‘If it did so, the UK could also retain its current terms of membership, including the “rebate” negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, and it would be under no obligation to join the Euro. It is important to note that the ruling only bites if the UK decides to cancel Brexit and the EU27 disagree.’

The judicial review was brought by a cross-party group of politicians and Jolyon Maugham QC, of Devereux Chambers.

Downing Street has responded that the ruling is hypothetical as the UK will not revoke Art 50.

Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll