‘Could the way in which Vote Leave used its NHS funding pledge during the EU referendum campaign amount to the offence of treason felony?’
New Law Journal, 1st June 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The conditions for when a snap election can be called were significantly restricted by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011. The Act of Parliament, which was part of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement produced after the 2010 general election, was introduced fixed-term elections to the Westminster parliament.’
Daily Telegraph, 31st May 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The “legislative tsunami” unleashed by Brexit will deliver the “greatest challenge” in history to the integrity of parliament’s procedures, a former lord chief justice has said. Lord Judge raised his concerns that by the time Brexit is completed and the “great repeal bill” enacted, MPs and peers will have effectively given away their powers to pass laws.’
The Guardian, 3rd May 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court in Miller set out the model that ‘the dualist system is a necessary corollary of Parliamentary sovereignty’ (para 57), or in the words of Campbell McLachlan in his admirable Foreign Relations Law, cited by the Supreme Court:
“If treaties have no effect within domestic law, Parliament’s legislative supremacy within its own polity is secure. If the executive must always seek the sanction of Parliament in the event that a proposed action on the international plane will require domestic implementation, parliamentary sovereignty is reinforced at the very point at which the legislative power is engaged (para 5.20).”‘
UK Constitutional Law Association, 28th April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The ease with which Theresa May was able to secure an early dissolution last week has led to suggestions that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 serves no useful purpose and should be scrapped. Drawing on wider evidence of how fixed-term parliaments legislation works in other countries, Robert Hazell argues that there is a danger that it is being judged prematurely, on the basis of a single episode. Future circumstances in which a Prime Minister seeks a dissolution may be different, and in these cases the Fixed-term Parliaments Act may serve as more of a constraint.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Theresa May has deftly launched a gambit to get around the core purpose of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 – and all signs are that it will succeed without delay. The purpose of that Act (for a tidy summary of resources see here) was to stop prime ministers from calling an election at a time that suited the Government’s rather than the country’s political future. The Coalition Government formed between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2010 gave effect to the insistence by the Liberal Democrats that legislation put an end to the Prime Minister’s power to call an election at will. The Act prescribes five year periods between elections, alterable only by (1) the passing by the House of Commons of a motion of non-confidence without subsequent withdrawal, or (2) the passing by the House of Commons of a motion calling for an early election by a majority of two-thirds. The election that follows an early election will occur in May of the fifth calendar year following the early election.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Coalition agreement introduced five-year parliaments but act allows for early elections if two-thirds of MPs vote in favour.’
The Guardian, 18th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In the White Paper published in February this year (“The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union” Cm 9417), the very first point made was that the “Great Repeal Bill” will “remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book and convert the ‘acquis’ – the body of existing EU law – into domestic law”. It was said that “[t]his means that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after [the United Kingdom] leave[s] the EU as they did before”.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 12th April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘More substantive than the 137 word EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (‘Notification Act’), which was passed by Parliament on 13 March, the Prime Minister’s 6 page letter of notice, issued under Article 50 TEU, is lacking in one crucial respect. This post asserts that, as a matter of UK constitutional law and in accordance with the EU Treaties as well as customary international law, conditionality should be inferred into this notice. Such conditionality manifests in the requirement of domestic Parliamentary approval at the end of the Article 50 negotiation process.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th April 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Last Thursday the government published its technical review of the operation of the “English votes for English laws” (EVEL) procedures in the House of Commons. The review concluded against making “any substantive changes”. Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny argue that this is a missed opportunity. The decision to close down this chance for parliament to engage in meaningful debate about the EVEL system is regrettable, and may prove to be short-sighted.’
UCL Constitution Unit, 5th April 2017
Source: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit
‘Miller and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 was highly anticipated as perhaps the most signficant constitutional case of this generation, stirring up such strong reactions that the judges of the Divisional Court who initially decided in favour of Ms. Miller were dubbed “Enemies of the People”. Two months after a majority of an 11-member Supreme Court confirmed that prerogative powers could not be used to invoke Article 50, however, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (hereafter referred to as the “Withdrawal Act”) received Royal Assent, conferring power on the Prime Minister to give the notification required to begin the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The passage of the Withdrawal Act fulfilled the constitutional requirements identified in Miller formally, within the purely political timetable set by the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party’s conference and without any additional legal requirements being imposed by way of amendment. This not only sets the stage but also prepares the way for a more permanent sidelining of Parliament as the supreme legislative body in the UK’s constitution as part of the process of leaving the European Union.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th March 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 7 March 2017, the House of Commons Committee of Privileges announced a new inquiry into the exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts of Parliament.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 23rd March 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Theresa May has been warned that Brexit is heading back to the courts after she refused to give MPs a “meaningful vote” on any final deal.’
The Independent, 13th March 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘On 17 February 2017, Bindmans LLP published an Opinion solicited from several leading authorities on EU law concerning Article 50 TEU. The so-dubbed ‘Three Knights Opinion’ put forward compelling legal arguments in support of why an Act of Parliament at the end of the Article 50 negotiation process is necessary in order to ensure that Brexit occurs in accordance with domestic and, by extension, EU law. These contentions, and Professor Elliot’s rebuttal, warrant careful consideration.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th March 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A good deal of the legal and constitutional interest generated by Brexit has so far, perhaps unsurprisingly, focussed upon the very beginning of the withdrawal process. Initially, all eyes were on the courts, with the Supreme Court holding in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 that the Article 50 mechanism can be activated only with Parliament’s legislative blessing. As a result of that landmark judgment, attention has now switched to Parliament, through which the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is presently passing.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th March 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Divided by a common language: American and British perspectives on constitutional law.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 27th February 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Miller reveals the malleability of the parliamentary sovereignty doctrine, argues Professor Mark Elliott in his examination of the many tensions which lie at the heart of the majority judgment.’
Counsel, March 2017
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘Legal criticism of the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is quickly amassing. Notably, Paul Daly suggested that general phrasing of an authorisation to notify the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU by the executive, of the sort contained in the Bill, may not suffice to ground lawfulness of such notification (or of withdrawing from the EU). It may not suffice, because the principle of legality could be said to require more specificity in conveying Parliament’s legislative choice to authorise withdrawal with all the possible detrimental consequences to individual rights. A similar argument was also presented in the “Three Knights Opinion” of Sir David Edward KCMG PC QC, Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG PC QC, Sir Jeremy Lever KCMG QC, Helen Mountfield QC and Gerry Facenna QC.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court’s treatment of the devolution issues in Miller is troubling, argues Aidan O’Neill QC, who examines the UK’s complex multi-national constitutional history and potential impact on the devolved political constitution.’
Counsel, March 2017
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court Brexit ruling may affect attempts to take legal action against Tony Blair and other “state officials” over their role in the Iraq War, it has emerged.’
The Independent, 14th February 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024