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
Tag: 2016
The decision of the Supreme Court in Miller — in which the UK Government will ask the Supreme Court to rule that the Article 50 process for withdrawing from the EU can be initiated without parliamentary involvement — may have significant consequences for how Brexit unfolds. But the Court is certainly not being asked to
It has been argued by some that the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (‘EPEA’) may present a particular obstacle to the use of the prerogative for the purpose of initiating the Article 50 process by which the UK will exit the EU. The argument concerning the EPEA essentially takes the form of a riposte to
The legitimate extent of judicial authority is a perennial and thorny question. In this lecture, I address the question from the perspective of public law — and, in particular, with reference to the role that judges play in relation to “constitution-making”.
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
By Mark Elliott and Hayley J Hooper
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
The following short comment on the High Court’s judgment in the Miller case was published on the Judicial Power Project’s website and is reproduced here with permission. The piece is part of a collection of short commentaries published by the Judicial Power Project; the full collection can be accessed here.
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
