If proof were needed that a week can be a long time in politics, one would need to look no further than the events of the last seven days in […]
In a recent article in the Telegraph, Professor John Finnis advances two quite astonishing arguments. First, he advocates proroguing Parliament until after 12 April (the day on which the UK […]
There appears to be a degree of uncertainty about the legal position concerning the extension of Article 50. Confusion seems to have arisen thanks to a combination of the way […]
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 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.
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
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effect in UK law and to make them legally ironclad unless the legislating giving effect to them is itself expressly repealed.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?
This post looks in some detail (albeit preliminarily) at how the EU (Withdrawal) Bill works, and comments on some of the key constitutional issues that it raises. A shorter post on the Bill, which forms part of my 1,000 words series, can be found here.
The “Black Spider Memos” case resulted in the publication of some rather pedestrian correspondence between Prince Charles and Government Ministers. But the Supreme Court’s judgment raises some fascinating constitutional issues
The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently reported on the constitutional issues that are likely to be raised by the “Great Repeal Bill”. This post, written by Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney, examines some of the key issues addressed by the Committee in its report.
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, […]
The legitimate extent of judicial authority is a perennial and thorny question. In this lecture, I address the question from the perspective of public law — and, in particular, with reference to the role that judges play in relation to “constitution-making”.
The Judicial Power Project has published a list of 50 “problematic” cases. It makes for interesting reading. The aim of the Judicial Power Project is to address the “problem” of […]
Theresa May’s case for withdrawal from the ECHR: Politically astute, legally dubious, constitutionally naïve
Theresa May argues that the UK should remain in the EU but withdraw from the ECHR. Her thinking may be politically comprehensible, but does it stack up in legal or constitutional terms?
I wrote earlier this week about Lord Judge’s recent lecture on Henry VIII powers — that is, powers conferred on the executive to amend or repeal provisions in Acts of […]