‘Drivers of the most polluting vehicles now have to pay to drive into central London – and soon other towns and cities across the UK will follow suit.’
BBC News. 12th April 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Lawyers like to make as much sense as possible of the material in front of them, transforming it, if they can, from a jumble of decisions and remarks into a coherent whole. For constitutional lawyers that habit of mind is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it causes lawyers to look for subtleties others miss (albeit sometimes subtleties they themselves create). It is a curse because when the material is generated by underlying mechanisms and ideas that fundamentally conflict, it leaves lawyers at a loss, or, worse, going round in circles.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th April 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Since the referendum in 2016, the Government has repeatedly justified its decisions on Brexit by invoking the concept of public trust. In December last year, the Prime Minister rejected the idea of a second referendum because, in her view, it “would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver”. Then, last month, the Prime Minister said that not leaving the EU would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”. And most recently, the Government – when confronted with a public petition to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU – relied upon this concept of public trust to justify its ultimate rejection of that petition.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th April 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This post continues the debate that has arisen following recent Parliamentary efforts to seize the initiative from the Government to avoid a no-deal Brexit, in particular the Cooper- Letwin Bill, and certain proposals that have emerged by which it is suggested the Government could thwart these efforts.’
Brexit Law, 8th April 2019
Source: brexit.law
‘The media regulator has launched an investigation into comments made by the Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow, who said of a pro-Brexit protest that he had “never seen so many white people in one place”.’
The Guardian, 8th April 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The information commissioner’s office will use its legal powers to obtain information from Facebook about a secretive network of pro-Brexit advertising campaigns on the social network, following revelations about the involvement of Sir Lynton Crosby’s company in campaigns pushing for a hard no-deal Brexit.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Professors Gavin Phillipson and Alison Young have argued on this blog that an Act of Parliament is needed to revoke article 50. An alternative view is that, while an Act may be desirable, it is not necessary. This is still an important issue because on Wednesday 27th of March 2019, 184 votes in the House of Commons were cast in favour of revoking article 50 before ‘exit day’ if no agreement had been reached, 293 votes were cast against, and 164 MPs abstained. By contrast, 400 MPs voted against ‘no deal’. Mathematically the question of revocation remains in play, because in an emergency a positive majority of the Commons may emerge. Because an Act takes longer than executive action, the question of the legal mechanism to revoke article 50 must be scrutinised.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th April 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Parliament voted on the evening of 1 April in a series of indicative votes to determine what, if any, alternative plan for withdrawal from the European Union could command the support of the House of Commons: all plans put forward again failed to command a majority. In a recent intervention, John Finnis has suggested that the government should prorogue Parliament until after 12 April in order to terminate the current parliamentary debate. Mark Elliott has offered a critique of the broader implications of this argument, namely the claim that such a course of action would be ‘(…) wholly legitimate as a matter of constitutional principle.’ Elliott concludes that parliamentary control of the process is entirely legitimate and in keeping with the British constitution. This piece adds to this analysis by elaborating why the prorogation Finnis advocates under these specific circumstances would be, as Elliott summarily puts it, ‘(…) an argument for unconstitutional action on the part of the Government.’ The piece develops a twofold argument: first, that ministerial advice tendered to seek a prorogation of Parliament under these circumstances is unconstitutional and that the Monarch should disregard it as a matter of constitutional convention; and second that holding otherwise would in effect grant the Prime Minister an unqualified veto over parliamentary business, leaving the government in an unconscionable position of power over the sovereign Parliament. Such an outcome would be fundamentally at odds with British parliamentary democracy, especially principles of democracy and representative and responsible government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd April 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE QC, Marie Demetriou QC and Emma Mockford of Brick Court Chambers have today published an Opinion, along with two other QCs and Professor Piet Eeckhout, Dean of the Law Faculty at UCL, grappling with the controversial issue of whether the UK need hold European Parliamentary elections in the event that there is any further extension of Article 50 beyond April 2019.’
Brexit Law, 28th March 2019
Source: brexit.law
‘Professor Catherine Barnard, discusses the latest Brexit developments and looks at the options now with just four days to go before the UK was originally set to leave the EU.’
Law Pod UK, 26th March 2019
Source: audioboom.com
‘The two-year time-limit in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union has come and gone. It is now possible that no withdrawal agreement between the European Council and the UK will be concluded. This means that the UK would leave the EU in catastrophic circumstances on April 12. An interesting final irony would be that the UK would be leaving the EU on the basis of a legal howler.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th March 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Legislation to enable Brexit is progressing through Parliament. This includes the Immigration and Social Security Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, and the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. One curious aspect of this raft of new law is that, at the same time these Bills are making their way through Parliament, statutory instruments (SIs) addressing some of the very same subject matters are also being laid. While this approach may find justification in some contexts, we argue in this post that the particular way this is being executed in some circumstances seems broadly at odds with the Government’s own stated approach to the process.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th March 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Throughout the two years of Brexit debates following Article 50 notification, the UK Government and Parliament consistently have failed to recognise that even if EU law is no longer applicable after Brexit, the UK is still bound to a broad gamut of rules under international law. Apparently attempting to appease Brexiteers, on 11 March Theresa May offered a unilateral statement to the EU on the UK interpretation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in relation to the backstop set out therein. In a similar vein, two days later, Geoffrey Cox MP argued that article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) offered an easy out of the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland backstop if a more acceptable arrangement could not be reached in the coming years. Now pundits, politicians, and academics alike are expending great energy trying to ascertain what effect the unilateral statement or article 62 may have on the Withdrawal Agreement in future. Put simply, the statement has no legal effect. Article 62 is not a panacea and both the UK government and Parliament would do well to stop relying on concepts in international law to cure all that is disagreeable with the Brexit process. International law supports the precise opposite positions asserted in both of these circumstances. If the aim in leaving the EU is to ‘be global’ without the filter of EU regulations, the application of the international rules (in which the UK had a heavy hand in drafting) must be understood as starting, rather than end, points for negotiating future relationships.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 20th March 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A financial services company has been ordered not to reuse an advert in which it tried to persuade people to take out a loan, in case they wanted to stockpile food because of Brexit.’
BBC News, 20th March 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Legal experts and child rights organisations have expressed grave concerns that thousands of children of EU nationals may become undocumented immigrants following Brexit.’
Rights Info, 19th March 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘With the second defeat of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, the subsequent vote to reject a “no-deal” Brexit, and the proposed votes today to extend the Art. 50 period, we must consider the legal practicalities of such an extension.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th March 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A High Court judge has granted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) permission to appeal in a dispute over whether its 25-year lease at Canary Wharf will be frustrated by Brexit.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th March 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government must ensure human rights standards are applied in treaties after Brexit, the UK Parliament Human Rights Committee has said.’
Rights Info, 12th March 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘The Court of Appeal has turned down an appeal against an application seeking judicial review of May’s triggering of Article 50 under the power granted to her by the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The applicants sought a declaration that this was unlawful because it was “based upon the result of a referendum that was itself unlawful as a result of corrupt and illegal practices, notably offences of overspending committed by those involved in the campaign to leave the EU”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th March 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025