‘Peers in the House of Lords have voted to amend European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which if passed by Parliament will allow the UK to start formal talks about leaving the EU.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st March 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘When the government decided to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s ruling that ministers could not lawfully use the royal prerogative to leave the EU, many lawyers, myself included, thought it a hopeless enterprise. A court of three judges – the Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales (who had been standing counsel to the government when at the bar) – had held on cogently reasoned grounds that the prior authority of an Act of Parliament was required. Nevertheless the Supreme Court sat in full, all 11 members, to hear what even the sober Constitution Unit was calling the case of the century. Well, the appeal failed, and by a decisive margin of eight votes to three. But the margin conceals what was jurisprudentially a closer-run thing than the numbers suggest.’
London Review of Books, 2nd March 2017
Source: www.lrb.co.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
‘On 2 February the government published its white paper on Brexit, which was intended to provide further detail regarding the overall aims the government would be pursuing once Article 50 has been triggered. Nick Wright assesses this document, concluding that whilst it does expand on some of Theresa May’s key pledges set out in the Lancaster House speech in several areas it remains unclear exactly what the government is seeking. One example of this is the idea of a UK-EU strategic partnership, which is proposed in the white paper but not expanded on. Overall, it is hard not to see the white paper as a missed opportunity.’
The Constitution Unit, 20th February 2017
Source: www.constitution-unit.com
‘The author of Article 50 has ridiculed the Government’s claim that the treaty clause cannot be stopped after it is triggered.’
The Independent, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘British prisons are holding child inmates in solitary confinement in an alleged breach of UN torture rules and British law, The Independent has found. Lawyers in one case have launched legal action against the Government in the High Court.’
The Independent, 21st February 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘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 bill authorising the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, enabling the UK to leave the EU, has cleared the Commons. It begins its consideration in the Lords today. In this post Lords expert Meg Russell discusses how the second chamber is likely to treat the bill. She suggests that this illustrates important dynamics between Lords and Commons, which are often disappointingly misunderstood both in the media and inside government.’
UCL Constitution Unit, 20th February 2017
Source: www.constitution-unit.com
‘In the last six months there have been lectures, seminars, evidence-givingsand-takings, reports issued, all over town, in which the future of commercial litigation in England has been discussed. It may not be completely true that these have as their object the utter immiseration of everyone within earshot, but that does appear to be the principal effect. Those who, like me, do not seem to be invited to such gatherings are at liberty to see things rather differently. We have a once-in-a generation opportunity to compare the rules of private international law which we currently have with what we might instead have, and to take stock. When that is done, the path ahead will be seen to be rather clearer and brighter than some others would tell you it is. One certainly hears people suggesting that secession from the European Union is going to have a damaging effect, but for our private international law the truth may well be otherwise. And while the need to deal with these tasks may be an un-looked-for interruption to normal work, for some of us the chance to ask questions challenges us to think about what we would like our rules of private international law to say. My conclusion will be that less will change than most seem to suppose (or, in some cases, seem to hope for). There will be minor changes, certainly, but need be nothing major; and if anything major does change, it will not be a change for the worse. In short, though I am very fearful of sounding like the Daily Mail in human form, private international law has no cause for alarm. I should perhaps say that a fuller and footnoted version of this paper will be available from the Combar website if anyone is interested.’
Full story (PDF)
Blackstone Chambers, 24th January 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘It is a monumental decision for a Member State to leave the European Union, not least when it will have a major impact on the economic, political and social future, not only of the exiting Member State, but also of the global trading regime. It is thus befitting that on 24 January 2017 the Supreme Court came of age by delivering one of its most important rulings, on the nature and future shape of the UK constitution. What started as a case concerning acquired rights became a wider ranging analysis of the role of the executive vis-a-vis Parliament. As befits a monumental constitutional decision, taking place in the digital age, the responses to the ruling have been prolific and focused upon the constitutional dimension to the litigation.’
Littleton Chambers, 27th January 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Opposition peers will not seek to wreck the government’s timetable for triggering article 50 when the Brexit bill comes before them on Monday, Labour’s leader in the House of Lords has said.’
The Guardian, 20th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The bill to trigger Brexit moves to the Lords next week, and a flurry of new amendments will be introduced. This could lead to the bill ping-ponging between the two Houses, and a high-stakes battle of wills.’
The Guardian, 17th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The EU fears millions of its nationals living in the UK will be left stranded in a legal no man’s land after the country leaves the EU because of the weaknesses of the British immigration system, a document obtained by the Observer reveals.’
The Guardian, 18th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Britain’s top judge has spoken out about media attacks on the judiciary and the failure of politicians to stand up for judges after the Brexit court challenge.’
The Guardian, 16th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Many celebrated Miller’s outcome, imposing a Parliamentary “brake” (however brief) on the triggering of Article 50. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous agreement on the devolution issues [129–151 for the majority; agreement in the dissents at 242, 243, and 282] may have weakened opposition to the Government’s “other” crusade—against the European Court of Human Rights.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This White Paper provides Parliament and the country with a clear vision of what we are seeking to achieve in negotiating our exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union.’
Official Publications, 2nd February 2017
‘Some of the accumulated noxious legal dust will now settle with the enacting of the grossly mistitled EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. We may have witnessed our first post-legal legal event. Populist law. If many people say a legally incorrect thing many times, it may come to be treated as if it were correct. Alternative law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Two senior judges have blocked a legal challenge to the government’s strategy for leaving the single market and the European Economic Area.’
The Guardian, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘David Davis failed to placate Conservative rebels concerned about the status of European Union migrants and other Brexit details, despite publishing a 77-page white paper setting out the government’s plans for leaving the EU.’
The Guardian, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024