header-logo header-logo

06 February 2019
Issue: 7827 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit ‘goes to the wire’

Government looking at ‘alternative arrangements’

Prime Minister Theresa May sought support in Northern Ireland and Brussels this week for changes to the backstop following an inconclusive vote in Parliament.

She pledged not to allow a hard border in Northern Ireland, telling a Belfast audience that preserving peace was one of her most profound responsibilities and she would ‘not do anything that would put that at risk’. However, she said the government was looking at ‘alternative arrangements’. Conservative MPs have been considering technological solutions to the border issue, a proposal known as the Malthouse Compromise. MPs rejected May’s proposal for a customs union backstop. May is due to return to Brussels this week to seek fresh concessions from EU President Jean-Claude Juncker.

Last week, MPs voted on seven proposed amendments to a government motion to endorse the way forward, of which two passed: one to press the EU for changes to the Northern Ireland backstop, the other to give voice to the wish not to leave without an agreement. The amendments are not binding but reflect the will of Parliament.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, said: ‘While this ups the pressure to avoid leaving without an agreement, “no deal” remains on the table at the moment unless by some chicanery Parliament can grab the ability to create a statute to bind the government.

‘That seems highly unlikely. So it is probably like this: if the government can sort a new backstop deal the prime minister might secure her deal with Parliament. If she can’t and the deal is defeated she will have the choice of leaving without a deal or asking the EU to delay the Article 50 exit.

‘Now the government makes its way to Brussels to see if it can alter the backstop. It’s going to the wire and for the time being the government retains the whip hand over Parliament.’ 

Issue: 7827 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll