Professor Mark Elliott
Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. All views on this blog are expressed in a purely personal capacity.
A number of colleagues and I wrote to The Times earlier this week on the subject of Royal Assent to legislation. The Times subsequently published a further letter on this […]
The House of Lords is today considering the Cooper-Letwin Bill — or, to give it its formal title, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 5) Bill — which would enable the […]
I am pleased to be a signatory to the following letter, which is published in today’s edition of The Times. The letter argues that it would be clearly unconstitutional for […]
In a recent article in the Telegraph, Professor John Finnis advances two quite astonishing arguments. First, he advocates proroguing Parliament until after 12 April (the day on which the UK […]
The Government has confirmed that tomorrow, Friday 29 March, it will lay a motion before the House of Commons seeking its approval of the Withdrawal Agreement — but not of […]
A group of Conservative MPs — including Suella Braverman, Bill Cash and David Jones — have written to the Prime Minister arguing that the UK Government acted unlawfully by obtaining […]
I wrote yesterday about the statutory instrument that the Government has laid before Parliament so as to realign the domestic definition of ‘exit day’ in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act […]
In an earlier post, I explained that the European Council’s decision to extend the Article 50 period is a separate matter from the way in which ‘exit day’ is defined […]
Throughout all of the twists and turns of the Brexit process so far, a rare point of certainty had (until recently) been that the UK was set to leave the […]
There appears to be a degree of uncertainty about the legal position concerning the extension of Article 50. Confusion seems to have arisen thanks to a combination of the way […]
In my first post on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7, I considered the Court’s approach to the relevance (or otherwise) of reliance in legitimate expectation cases, and looked at the way in which the case highlights the less than straightforward nature of the distinction […]
This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, uncomfortably, at a number of […]
The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently issued a report on the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. The Bill amounts to an excellent, if alarming, case study on constitutional implications of […]
I have written before about the Supreme Court’s judgment, given in December 2018, in the ‘Scottish Continuity Bill case’ [2018] UKSC 64. The Continuity Bill was adopted by the Scottish Parliament against the […]
During an interview on the Today programme on Radio 4 (here, beginning two hours and ten minutes into the broadcast), Sir Stephen Laws made — or at least appeared to […]
In a piece published on Prospect magazine’s website, I argue that two years ago MPs were gifted a golden opportunity to take control of Brexit when the Supreme Court gave […]
