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effect in UK law and to make them legally ironclad unless the legislating giving effect to them is itself expressly repealed.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 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, are replete with posts that […]
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”.