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
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.
I have written a short piece for Prospect magazine about the constitutional issues raised by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: MPs today begin debating what was once grandly dubbed the “Great Repeal Bill”. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it is now more soberly known, is intended to avert legal catastrophe when Britain leaves the EU, by
In an interim report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said that the “political, legal and constitutional significance of the Bill is unparalleled”. In this post, Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney examine the main points made in the report and comment on the key issues raised by it.
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill is an enormously complex piece of legislation which is likely to bequeath a similarly complex — and uncertain — post-Brexit legal system. Examining the Bill will present Parliament with a unique challenge. In the interests of promoting scrutiny and debate, this post sets out 20 questions that highlight important, and sometimes fundamental, ambiguities and difficulties in relation to the Bill as it is presently drafted.
The Scottish Government has issued a statement saying that the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is a “blatant power grab” to which the Scottish Parliament is unlikely to consent. Is the Scottish Government right to characterise the Bill thus? And what will happen if consent to it is not forthcoming?
A collection of key texts, official publications and commentaries relating to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill