House of Lords Constitution Committee takes evidence on ‘Great Repeal Bill’

  On 1 February, the House of Lords Constitution Committee took evidence from Professors John Bell, Paul Craig and Alison Young on the likely constitutional implications of the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ is not to be confused with the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which is currently before Parliament. The latter Bill was introduced into Parliament in response to the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, which held that the process under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, whereby the UK will withdraw from the EU, … Continue reading House of Lords Constitution Committee takes evidence on ‘Great Repeal Bill’

Article for Counsel magazine: Miller and the modern British constitution

This article reflects on the key constitutional issues raised by the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5. It is available on Counsel magazine’s website and was published in the March 2017 print edition of Counsel. The article is republished here with permission. There are few aspects of the modern British constitution that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller does not at least engage. Among others, it raises questions about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty, the extent of the executive’s prerogative authority, the status within the domestic legal system of European … Continue reading Article for Counsel magazine: Miller and the modern British constitution

Analysis / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller

In this post I analyse and reflect upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5. A shorter post, setting out the key aspects of the majority and dissenting judgments, can be found here. On 24 January 2017, the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in the Miller case, in which the Government sought to establish that it could initiate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without reference to Parliament. The Supreme Court also considered whether the UK’s devolution arrangements impacted upon the Government’s capacity to trigger Article 50 of … Continue reading Analysis / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller

1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller

In this 1,000 words post I explain the key points decided by the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5. I have written a separate, longer, post in which I analyse the case in depth; that post can be found here. In its judgment in Miller, the Supreme Court reached two key conclusions: that an Act of Parliament is needed before Brexit can be triggered, and that the law does not enable devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to block Brexit. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union … Continue reading 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller

Brexit, sovereignty, and the contemporary British constitution: Four perspectives on Miller

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 views. As the debate has progressed, I have increasingly found myself wondering why the questions raised by the case have invited such strongly contrasting answers from those who have contributed to the discussion. Indeed, a particularly striking feature of the debate is the way in … Continue reading Brexit, sovereignty, and the contemporary British constitution: Four perspectives on Miller

1,000 words / The Miller case in the Supreme Court: The key arguments

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 rule upon the wisdom of Brexit. What, then, are the legal issues that the Court is being asked to determine? The Government wishes to trigger Article 50 using the Crown’s ‘prerogative’, or inherent, power to conduct the foreign relations of the UK. However, the claimant … Continue reading 1,000 words / The Miller case in the Supreme Court: The key arguments

Article 50, the royal prerogative, and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002

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 those who contend that the way in which the European Communities Act 1972 (‘ECA’) works means that it presents no obstacle to triggering Article 50 TEU using prerogative power. Even — it is said — if the ECA argument works, it founders when the EPEA … Continue reading Article 50, the royal prerogative, and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002