The Prime Minister has been warned of possible legal action on the issue of whether the UK can leave the EU without a second referendum. But does the European Union Act 2011 really require a further plebiscite?
Search Results for: Brexit
All posts published on Public Law for Everyone concerning Brexit are listed below, in reverse chronological order. Many Brexit-related posts also fall into other categories, most obviously Constitutional Law, and are therefore also included in other relevant post indexes. All post indexes can be accessed via the “Explore” menu that appears at the top of each page.
Several eminent lawyers argue that legislation authorising the triggering of Article 50 is insufficient to authorise the conclusion of the Brexit process. But it is far from clear that their analysis is compatible with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Miller case.
Parliament is currently considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. If enacted, it will authorise the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, thus beginning the process whereby the UK will leave the EU. The Bill, as drafted by the Government, is very short indeed: the Government is evidently hopeful that Parliament will accept a Bill doing the bare
To say that the Miller case has stimulated a wide-ranging constitutional debate would be to engage in rash understatement. The pages of the UK Constitutional Law Association Blog, in particular, are replete with posts that examine the issues raised by the case from a rich variety of perspectives and which advance a broad spectrum of
Following the judgment of the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (about which I have written briefly here, and in more detail, with Hayley Hooper, here), this week’s edition of BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action examines the implications of the decision and broader questions about the next steps that are likely
There are three aspects of the High Court’s ruling in Miller — the implication of which is that Article 50 cannot be triggered without an Act of Parliament — that are significant. The first is whether the High Court was right as a matter of law. I have already written briefly about the legal merits
A couple of weeks ago, I gave a talk as part of the University of Cambridge’s Brexit Week — a series of events organised by my colleagues Professor Catherine Barnard and Dr Amy Ludlow. The event at which I spoke was entitled ‘The Politics and Process of Leaving the EU’. Professor David Runciman, the head of the University’s
David Davis MP, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, has made a statement to the House of Commons concerning the Brexit process. He has done so amid mounting cross-party concerns about the involvement of Parliament in that process — concerns that his statement are likely to do little to assuage. To the extent that it
I took part yesterday in a special live edition of Law in Action on BBC Radio 4. Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor Steve Peers and I discussed the legal and constitutional implications of Brexit with presenter Joshua Rosenberg. We covered a broad range of matters —hopefully in a way that was accessible to an equally broad range of listeners. In
