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

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll