In this post, Mark Elliott, Stephen Tierney and Alison L Young consider the implications of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for human rights protection — and how the Bill might be amended if the protections afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights are to be maintained after Brexit
Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney summarise the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s report on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and highlight some of the key constitutional implications raised by the Committee
Does the Government defeat on clause 9 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill mean Parliament has ‘taken back control’?
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?
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effect in UK law and to make them legally ironclad unless the legislating giving effect to them is itself expressly repealed.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?
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.