Royal Assent: Letter to The Times
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 […]
Brexit, the Executive and Parliament: A response to John Finnis
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 […]
Meaningful Vote 3: The legal implications of separating the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration
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 […]
Did the UK Government act unlawfully by extending Article 50?
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 […]
What if ‘exit day’ is not redefined in domestic law?
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 […]
Redefining ‘exit day’ in domestic law
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 […]
Revoking Article 50: Legislating to take a no-deal Brexit off the table
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 […]
Extending Article 50: Separating myth and legal reality
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 […]
The Healthcare Bill: A case study in the implications (and dangers) of legislating for Brexit
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 […]
Video: Cambridge Centre for Public Law event on the Scottish Continuity Bill case
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 […]
Can the Government veto legislation by advising the Queen to withhold royal assent?
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 […]
From Miller to the meaningful vote: Why on earth didn’t Parliament take control when it had the chance?
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 […]
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Scottish Continuity Bill case
Earlier this week, the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in relation to the “Scottish Continuity Bill” [2018] UKSC 64. The matter reached the Court through a reference made under section […]
Confidence motions and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) has today published an interim report on the effect of confidence motions in the light of the Fixed-term Parliaments […]
Civil legal aid as a constitutional imperative: A response to Lord Sumption
Having prefaced his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice with a controversial lecture that (as Sir Stephen Sedley put it) he used “to reprove the judiciary which he was about to join for failing to keep out of the political arena”, the end of Lord Sumption’s judicial career is now marked by an address that is no less tendentious. Giving […]
The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Taking back “control of our laws”?
On its new “Brexit Facts” website, the UK Government takes issue with the claim that the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement “would not give us back control of our laws”. However, in disputing that claim, the Government makes some questionable assertions of its own
