In the Government's first defeat on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, Parliament has insisted that a withdrawal agreement cannot be implemented without its approval. But does that really mean that Parliament is now in the driving seat when it comes to shaping the terms of Brexit?
Tag: 2017
In the preliminary agreement concerning the terms of Brexit, the UK Government promises to give EU citizens' rights direct effect in UK law and to make them legally ironclad unless the legislating giving effect to them is itself expressly repealed. But does the principle of parliamentary sovereignty prevent such a high degree of protection from being accorded to citizens' rights?
In the Privacy International case, the Court of Appeal accepted that an ouster clause precluded judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Sales LJ contended that the issue turned on 'a short point of statutory construction'. The reality, however, is that such cases take the courts into the deepest of constitutional waters.
In this paper, published in a special issue of the University of Queensland Law Journal, I chart the growth of judicial power in the United Kingdom and consider how the proper limits of such power might be identified
Some senior MPs have suggested that Parliament could stop Brexit in its tracks in a 'no deal' scenario. The reality, however, is far more complex. Parliament might be sovereign, but there are limits to what even it can legally achieve.
Talk of a 'transitional' or 'implementation' period as a means of smoothing the UK's departure from the EU is now commonplace. But how would it work legally? A new briefing paper to which I have contributed explores that question.
Following her statement to the House of Commons on 9 October 2017 concerning the progress of Brexit negotiations, the Prime Minister was asked the following question by Ben Bradshaw MP: Is it the Prime Minister’s understanding that, if necessary, it is possible to halt the article 50 process? The Prime Minister replied: The position was … Continue reading Did the Prime Minister accurately answer MPs’ questions about the Miller case and revoking Article 50?
The third edition of Public Law was published by Oxford University Press in May 2017. This is the last in a series of posts by the authors, Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, taking the 2017 election and Brexit as reference points and updating readers on recent developments in the field. These posts are based on updates first published by Oxford University Press in the book's Online Resource Centre.
The third edition of Public Law was published by Oxford University Press in May 2017. This is the third in a series of posts by the authors, Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, taking the 2017 election and Brexit as reference points and updating readers on recent developments in the field. These posts are based on updates first published by Oxford University Press in the book's Online Resource Centre.
The third edition of Public Law was published by Oxford University Press in May 2017. This is the second in a series of posts by the authors, Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, taking the 2017 election and Brexit as reference points and updating readers on recent developments in the field. These posts are based on updates first published by Oxford University Press in the book's Online Resource Centre.
Public Law for Everyone 