‘In R(on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, the Supreme Court gave an important judgment regarding the importance of access of justice. The Supreme Court held that the fees imposed by the Lord Chancellor in employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal cases were unlawful.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On Wednesday the UK Supreme Court ruled court fees for claims before employment tribunals, introduced by the coalition government in 2013, to be illegal. Christina Lienen argues that this judgement is likely to join the ranks of landmark constitutional decisions, given its characterisation of the UK constitution as founded in common law and therefore in the hands of judges rather than politicians.’
UCL Constitution Unit, 28th July 2017
Source: constitution-unit.com
‘Nine months after Theresa May first announced that there would be a ‘Great Repeal Bill’, and three and a half months after triggering Article 50, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (EUW Bill) was published on 13 July 2017. The Bill is a complex mixture of constitutional change and legal continuity. This post highlights some of its main elements.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th July 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.’
The Guardian, 20th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On 29 March 2017, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter of notice was delivered to Donald Tusk, thereby formally triggering the Treaty-based process for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The question remains: is this trajectory irreversible, or can the UK rescind its notification?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘With the Supreme Court handing down its judgment in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU on 24 January this year, one might have been forgiven for thinking that the issues around the legality of the triggering of Article 50 had been settled. As we all now know, the Supreme Court decided that Parliament had to give legislative authority for UK ministers lawfully to notify the UK of its intention to withdraw from the EU. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was enacted and the Prime Minister duly wrote President Tusk her Article 50 letter.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th June 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024