Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful – BBC News
‘Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.’
BBC News, 11th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: constitutional law
Brexit: Judge rejects parliament shutdown legal challenge – BBC News
‘A Scottish judge has rejected a bid to have Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down parliament ahead of Brexit declared illegal.’
BBC News, 4th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Article: The legal challenge to proroguing Parliament – what is happening in the Scottish Courts? – UKSC Blog
‘In this article, UKSC Blog editor, Emma Boffey, an associate at CMS based in Scotland, writes on the Scottish legal challenge to the proroguing of the UK Parliament: a case widely expected to head to the UK Supreme Court in the coming weeks.’
UKSC Blog, 2nd September 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
Jacob Rowbottom: Political Purposes and the Prorogation of Parliament – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘While the prorogation of Parliament has generated political controversy, constitutional lawyers are asking whether the government acted legally in advising the Monarch. The legal challenges to the prorogation will face a number of hurdles. Even if the prerogative power is justiciable, there are difficult questions in identifying the specific legal issue. When writing about a potential challenge in June, Lord Pannick stated that one legal objection is that ‘the prime minister would be seeking to prorogue parliament for the purpose of avoiding parliamentary sovereignty on an issue of significant constitutional importance’. This post will explore a related line of argument, which focuses on proroguing Parliament as a means to avoid political accountability (so the argument does not rely on the language of sovereignty). The starting point in the line of argument is that the prorogation will to some degree hinder Parliament in whatever it wants to do in the period immediately prior to Britain exiting the EU. That goes beyond the potential to enact legislation or pass a motion of no confidence, and also includes the ordinary channels of political accountability and scrutiny of government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Prorogation: Constitutional Principle and Law, Fact and Causation – Oxford Human Rights Hub
‘The Prime Minister’s recent announcement that Parliament would be prorogued, thereby severely curtailing the opportunity for parliamentary debate, raises important issues of constitutional principle and law, and also issues concerning fact and causation. They are examined in turn.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
Playing Hardball with the Queen – Oxford Human Rights Hub
‘The idea of constitutional hardball was introduced to the world by Mark Tushnet. The sport is played when political actors decide the stakes are so high that any lawful action is justified, no matter how constitutionally problematic: hardball stays within the confines of the law, but runs against the spirit, and sometimes the conventions, of the constitution.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
Proroguing parliament sets a horrifying precedent. I’m going to court to stop it – Gina Miller – The Guardian
‘Other dictatorial moves may follow if Boris Johnson’s ruse is allowed to pass. The high court must listen to our case against it.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Parliament suspension: What was the Queen’s role? – BBC News
‘It is most unlikely we will ever get any authoritative insight into what the Queen thought about the prime minister’s request for her to suspend Parliament.’
BBC News, 29th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Parliament had failed on Brexit long before this prorogation – The Guardian
‘MPs had three years to come up with an alternative to no deal – and they failed.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Brexit: Gina Miller files for legal challenge to stop Boris Johnson’s ‘cynical and cowardly’ plan to prorogue parliament – The Independent
‘Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller has as filed an urgent application for a legal challenge to stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “cynical and cowardly” plan to prorogue parliament.’
The Independent, 29th August 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Are there principles that trump democracy? The Reith Lectures, 2019: Lord Sumption’s Lecture and Responses – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Are there principles that trump democracy? This was one of a number of profound philosophical and legal questions addressed by former UK Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption in his recent and controversial Reith Lectures, which addressed subjects such an law’s expanding empire, the challenges posed by human rights, and the advantage of an unwritten constitution.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th July 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Mike Gordon: Privacy International, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Synthetic Constitution – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘The case of R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the latest in a series of high profile judicial engagements with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The case concerned the legal status of s.68(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and in particular, whether this provision constituted a successful attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear challenges to the decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal by judicial review.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th June 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
To shut down parliament would be simple. But it would be an outrage – The Guardian
‘The next prime minister will have the power to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit, though would he or she dare close the Commons for three months?’
The Guardian, 13th June 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Sam Fowles: Can the Prime Minister Prorogue Parliament to Deliver a No Deal Brexit? – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘In recent days certain government backbenchers have proposed a new avenue to deliver a “no deal” Brexit.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th June 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Graham Gee and Chris McCorkindale: The Political Constitution at 40 – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘The constitution ‘is no more and no less than what happens’. So wrote Professor John Griffith in the 1978 Chorley Lecture, ‘The Political Constitution’, which was later republished in the Modern Law Review in 1979. It was not the first time that Griffith dangled this tantalizing aphorism before his readers, but it was this lecture that saw it melt into the vocabulary of public law. It might seem trite to spotlight this aphorism from what is a rich and intricate lecture full of important insights as well as memorable phrases. However, as we see it, constitutional practice over the last three years —or, for that matter, the last three months, the last three weeks, or even the last three days—underscores the continuing relevance of Griffith’s insights into the complex and contingent nature of the relationship between law, politics and the constitution.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd June 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Stephanie Reynolds: Brexit and the (Not Quite) Constitutionalised Status of EU Citizenship – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘Since its formal introduction in the Maastricht Treaty, EU citizenship has laid claim to a constitutional status. The Union Treaties – long described by the Court of Justice as the EU’s constitutional texts – explicitly confer the status of Union citizenship on all nationals of the Member States. The asserted significance of this was subsequently confirmed in the seminal Grzelczyk judgment, in which the Court famously declared that EU citizenship was ‘destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th April 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
David Howarth: Westminster versus Whitehall: Two Incompatible Views of the Constitution – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘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
Could ministerial advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament or to refuse assent to a Parliamentary Bill be challenged in the courts? – Brexit Law
‘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
Ewan McGaughey: What Is Needed in Our Constitution to Revoke Article 50? – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘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
Stefan Theil: Unconstitutional Prorogation – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘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
