I recently completed work on an article for a special issue of the Japanese legal journal Horitsu Jiho. The theme of the special issue is the impact of the forces […]
A group of Conservative MPs — including Suella Braverman, Bill Cash and David Jones — have written to the Prime Minister arguing that the UK Government acted unlawfully by obtaining […]
I wrote yesterday about the statutory instrument that the Government has laid before Parliament so as to realign the domestic definition of ‘exit day’ in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act […]
On its new “Brexit Facts” website, the UK Government takes issue with the claim that the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement “would not give us back control of our laws”. However, in disputing that claim, the Government makes some questionable assertions of its own
In a new journal article, Stephen Tierney and I consider the constitutional implications of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Mark Elliott, Jack Williams and Alison L Young introduce The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond — an edited collection published by Hart Publishing which explores the constitutional implications and legacy of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Miller case
The Government has published a White Paper outlining the legislation it will put to Parliament to give effect to the hoped-for Brexit withdrawal agreement. This post considers the constitutional issues raised by the proposed legislation — including its relationship with the just-enacted EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018
In a new paper, I explore what light has been shone on the UK constitution, and on the axiomatic principle of parliamentary sovereignty in particular, by EU membership — and what the post-Brexit constitutional legacy of that membership might be
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 paves the way for Brexit by providing for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and converting EU law into UK law. This post summarises how the Act works and briefly considers some of the key constitutional issues that it raises.
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.
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.