‘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
‘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
‘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
‘A Scottish judge has refused to order a temporary halt to Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down the UK Parliament.’
BBC News, 30th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘Sir John Major has said he will seek a judicial review should Boris Johnson become Tory leader and suspend Parliament in order to deliver a no-deal Brexit. But, just what is a judicial review?’
BBC News, 10th July 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘At the same time as Parliament prepares to ‘take back control’ from Brussels, the executive is in fact accruing to itself further control over the legislative process. In this post I address a number of trends – only some of which are a direct consequence of the unique circumstances of Brexit – which suggest a deeper realignment of institutional power within the constitution and a consequent diminution of Parliament’s legislative power.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd July 2018
Source: 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
‘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
‘The attorney general has defended the government’s decision to take the fight over how article 50 is triggered to the highest UK court, assuring MPs that the cost of the appeal will be published “in due course”.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 16th March 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.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
‘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
‘When Sir Ivan Rogers stepped down in January as the UK’s top official in Brussels, he urged his colleagues to “continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking” and not to be afraid “to speak the truth to those in power.” The implication was clear. The government’s Brexit preparations displayed all these failings but the politicians responsible did not like having this pointed out.’
OUP Blog, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Following one of the most constitutionally significant legal challenges in a generation, the Supreme Court today handed down its judgment in the Article 50 Brexit appeal. By a majority of eight to three, the Justices held that the UK could not trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament. The Court also ruled that the UK Government was not compelled to consult the devolved institutions or obtain their approval to withdraw.’
Blackstone Chambers, 24th January 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Politics and the law were kept well apart in the Supreme Court’s adroit and erudite judgment in Miller.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 26th January 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Four different versions of the law giving Theresa May the power to start Brexit have already been prepared as ministers brace themselves for Supreme Court defeat this week.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st January 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Unlike many legal subjects, constitutional law involves an awareness of history. Conversely, a student of British Constitutional History benefits from an understanding of legal concepts. (Though, as a history undergraduate who in 1969 was taught the subject by Jenifer Hart, the wife of HLA Hart, any mention of the “rule of recognition” would have been lost on me.) As we await the decision of the Supreme Court, it is germane to consider the story of the UK’s accession to the EEC and other Communities in 1971-1973. The debates in the House of Commons in 1971-72 provide one with a good understanding of the legal and constitutional issue which were at play; as well, of course of the international, political and economic issues which engaged the attention of Ministers and backbenchers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th January 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024