header-logo header-logo

09 January 2019
Issue: 7823 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Cooper defeats no-deal Brexit

Cross-party amendment to curb government’s powers on exit day

Labour MP Yvette Cooper has succeeded in blocking the government from leaving the EU without a deal unless MPs have specifically consented.

Cooper’s cross-party amendment to the Finance Bill, which passed by 303 to 296 votes, is a major victory, making the Conservatives the first ruling party to lose the Finance Bill vote in 41 years. The amendment would curb the government’s tax administration powers on the 29 March 2019 exit day unless one of three conditions has been met. These are that Parliament has approved a deal with the EU; an Art 50 extension has been agreed with the other 27 EU Member States; or Parliament has specifically consented through a vote to a no-deal Brexit.

Some 20 Conservatives rebelled to vote for Cooper’s amendment, and the Labour leadership also gave support.

Speaking in the Commons, Cooper said: ‘I think we have a responsibility not to just stand by.’

Meanwhile, barrister David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers, writing in NLJ this week, confidently predicts that both opposition and ruling parties will eventually support a second referendum, if the prime minister’s deal is defeated (see p12).

This new People’s Vote could remedy the ‘fiasco’ of the first one, Wolchover says, as long as it was ‘properly constructed and managed’ and included a threshold. The mechanism for it could be a standalone bill in the House of Lords along with a separate Bill postponing the 29 March 2019 exit day.

Wolchover reiterates the point that the 2016 referendum was advisory only and contends that Theresa May’s decision to activate Art 50 on the basis alone of the referendum result ‘flew in the face of the EU Referendum Act 2015 and as such was arguably unconstitutional’. He also complains of ‘barefaced gerrymandering’ since nearly a million expatriates were denied a vote and of ‘serious criminal offending’ in terms of Vote Leave’s £450,000 overspend above the £7m limit.

Issue: 7823 / 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