Earlier this week, I gave a Cambridge Centre for Public Law Seminar on the subject of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, in which it was held that the process of withdrawing from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on European
Author: Mark Elliott
The Conservative Party — which, barring an electoral surprise that would make the election of Donald Trump look pedestrian, will form the next UK administration — has published its manifesto. What does it reveal about the constitutional aspects of the party’s programme for government?
The Third Biennial Public Law Conference will take place at the University of Melbourne in July 2018. The call for papers is now open.
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?
In Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Carmichael, the Government argued that the First-tier Tribunal could not intervene when housing benefit was reduced under ECHR-incompatible regulations. The Upper Tribunal disagreed. In doing so, it was on strong constitutional ground.
A pre-publication version of my Cambridge Law Journal article on decision of the Supreme Court in Miller is now available. In it, I argue that the majority’s judgment does not withstand critical scrutiny.
In its recent White Paper, the Government set out its thinking about the “Great Repeal Bill”. In this series of tweets, I highlight some of the key elements of the White Paper.
The “Great Repeal Bill” will lay the legislative foundations for the extensive process of legal re-wiring necessitated by Brexit. In its White Paper published in March 2017, the Government set out its plans for the Bill in broad terms — but it is clear that much thinking remains to be done.
The “Black Spider Memos” case resulted in the publication of some rather pedestrian correspondence between Prince Charles and Government Ministers. But the Supreme Court’s judgment raises some fascinating constitutional issues
One of the first posts I wrote on this blog concerned the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v First-tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19. At the heart of the case was the distinction between questions of law and fact, and its implications for judicial oversight of tribunals. The distinction is important because if an issue that
