This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. In its historic judgment in Cherry/Miller (No … Continue reading 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2)
Tag: 2019
The following is my detailed, initial analysis of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a shorter explanation of the case, see this 1,000 words post. Reactions to the unanimous Supreme Court judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) [2019] UKSC 41 have been as strong as they have been diverse. On one … Continue reading A new approach to constitutional adjudication? Miller II in the Supreme Court
A good deal has been said in recent days about whether the Government’s advice to the Queen concerning the prorogation of Parliament raises a legal question on which courts can properly adjudicate. As is well-known, English and Scottish courts have so far differed sharply on this point: in the Cherry case, the Inner House of … Continue reading Prorogation and justiciability: Some thoughts ahead of the Miller II case in the Supreme Court
Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Stephen Barclay MP, posted a tweet saying that he had “signed the legislation setting in stone the repeal” of the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA). (The ECA is the UK statute that gives effect to EU law in the UK’s domestic legal system.) He … Continue reading The Brexit Secretary says he has “set in stone” the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 — but the legal significance of this misleading claim is very limited
The following letter was published in The Times on 12 August 2019. It responds to an article, published in the same newspaper on 9 August, in which Professor Vernon Bogdanor made a number of suggestions about Parliament’s capacity to prevent a no-deal Brexit. (Some of the same suggestions were also made in a Guardian article … Continue reading Letter to The Times: Parliament’s (limited) capacity to prevent a no-deal Brexit
Boris Johnson, the UK’s new Prime Minister, says that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October “do or die”. With negotiations between the UK and the EU apparently at an impasse, the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit now appears to be somewhat greater than the “million-to-one against” chance to which Johnson referred in … Continue reading Can Parliament prevent a no-deal Brexit?
By Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney The topic of parliamentary scrutiny of the making of treaties could hardly be more topical, given the role that Parliament is currently playing in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK Government is seeking to enter into with the European Union. That role arises from section 13 of … Continue reading House of Lords Constitution Committee reports on Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties
A good deal has been written over the last couple of weeks about the granting of Royal Assent to legislation — and, in particular, about whether the Government can prevent a Bill from becoming law by advising against, or delaying putting it forward for, Royal Assent. That so much has been written on this topic … Continue reading Royal Assent and constitutional principle: A further response to John Finnis
Earlier today, the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council requesting a further extension of the Article 50 period to 30 June 2019. Meanwhile, the Cooper-Letwin Bill (which I examine in detail in this post) has completed all its stages in the House of Commons and has received its second reading in … Continue reading Does the Prime Minister’s request for an Article 50 extension scupper the Cooper-Letwin Bill?
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 topic by Professor Rodney Brazier. The following letter, published by the Times today, responds to Professor Brazier. Sir, Professor Brazier (‘Ministerial advice and the Queen’) … Continue reading Letter to the Times: Response to Professor Brazier’s letter on Royal Assent
Public Law for Everyone 