The list below organises the voluminous commentary and legal filings in the Miller litigation. It is designed to be one-stop-shop for locating relevant documents, helping to identify the key issues. It is also dynamic. Readers who have suggestions for other blogs or sources are welcome to suggest additions to firstname.lastname@example.org. The 500 word reaction pieces will also be added to the list. It is anticipated that this post will sit on the sidebar of the UKCLA blog during further debate on Miller for easy access for readers. Items listed with an “*” post-date the Supreme Court decision.
Last updated: 31 January 2017
Legal Filings and Summaries
Supreme Court Website – contains all party filings and transcripts
Commentators (alphabetical order)
John Adenitire: The Implications of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for Triggering Art 50
John Adenitire: Exiting the EU Constitutionally
Philip Allott: Fundamental Legal Aspects of UK Withdrawal from the EU: Eight Stages
*Philip Allott: The Short Title of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill Is Incorrect
*Nicholas Aroney: Circular Reasoning in the Supreme Court’s Miller decision
T.T. Arvind, Richard Kirkham, and Lindsay Stirton: Article 50 and the European Union Act 2011
Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King: Pulling the Article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s Indispensable Role
Mikolaj Barczentewicz: Uses and Misuses of the Rule of Recognition in Miller
Mikolaj Barczentewicz: Consequences of the High Court’s Reasoning in the Article 50 Judgment:
Mikolaj Barczentewicz: The Supreme Court Should Not Refer to the EU Court of Justice on Article 50
Mikołaj Barczentewicz: The Core Issue in Miller: The Relevance of Section 1 of the 1972 Act
Mikołaj Barczentewicz: What Is the Government Really Arguing in the Article 50 litigation? A Response to Mark Elliott
*Mikolaj Barczentewicz: Taking the Principle of Legality Too Far
Kieron Beal QC: The Taxing Issues arising in Miller
Eirik Bjorge: EU Rights as British Rights
Ana Bobic and Josephine van Zeben: Negotiating Brexit: Can the UK Have Its Cake and Eat It?
Brick Court Brexit blog: summary of the issues
*Lisa Burton Crawford: Constitutional Tradition, Constitutional Change
Kenneth Campbell QC: Sand in the Gearbox: Devolution and Brexit
Kenneth Campbell QC: Where Are We, and Where Are We Going Next? Further Reflections on Devolution
Kenneth Campbell QC: How Devolution Has Altered Some Fundamentals of the British Constitution
Elizabeth Campion: Parliamentary and Governmental Power in the Wake of the EU Referendum
Paul Craig: Brexit: Foundational Constitutional and Interpretive Principles: I
Paul Craig: Brexit: Foundational Constitutional and Interpretive Principles: II
Paul Craig and Mark Freedland: Miller: Rights and Revocability
Paul Craig: Miller: Alternative Syllogisms
Paul Craig: Miller: Winning Battles and Losing Wars
Robert Craig: Casting Aside Clanking Medieval Chains: Prerogative, Statute and Article 50 (MLR article)
Robert Craig: Triggering Article 50 Does not Require Fresh Legislation
Robert Craig: The Abeyance Principle and the Frustration Principle
Robert Craig: Miller: The Statutory Basis Argument – A Primer
*Robert Craig: Miller Supreme Court Case Summary
Francesco de Cecco: Miller, Article 50 Revocability and the Question of Control
Gavin Creelman: The Relevance of Thoburn to the Article 50 “Trigger” Debate
*Paul Daly: The Form of the Article 50 Authorisation Bill: Some Early Thoughts on Miller
*Paul Daly: Covering the Bases: Miller and the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Raj Desai: Miller and the Flexibility of the UK Constitution
*Hasan Dindjer: Sources of Law and Fundamental Constitutional Change
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott: Brexit, Article 50 and the Contested British Constitution (MLR article)
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott: The ‘Great Repeal Bill’: Constitutional Chaos and Constitutional Crisis?
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott: Miller: Why the Government Should Still Lose in the SC (Even with New Arguments)
Sionaidh Douglas Scott: Miller in the Supreme Court: The Scottish Case
*Jim Duffy: Defying Convention: Supreme Court Puts Sewel on the Sidelines
Piet Eeckhout: The UK Decision to Withdraw from the EU: Parliament or Government?
Richard Ekins: Can the Courts Block Brexit?
Richard Ekins: Parliamentary Sovereignty and the High Court’s Mistake
*Pavlos Eleftheriadis: The Systematic Constitution
Mark Elliott: On Why, as a Matter of Law, Triggering Article 50 Does Not Require Parliament to Legislate
Mark Elliott: The Government’s Case in the Article 50 Litigation: A Critique
Mark Elliott: On Whether the Article 50 Decision Has Already Been Taken
Mark Elliott and Hayley Hooper: Critical Reflections on the High Court’s Judgment in Miller
Mark Elliott: Courts, Democracy and Brexit: Some Home Truths
Mark Elliott: The High Court Judgment – A Brief Comment
Mark Elliott: Article 50, the Royal Prerogative, and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002
Mark Elliott: The Miller Case in the Supreme Court: The Key Arguments
*Mark Elliott: The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller (1,000 words)
*Mark Elliott: The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller (Analysis)
Timothy Endicott: ‘This Ancient, Secretive Royal Prerogative’
Timothy Endicott: Parliament and the Prerogative: From the Case of Proclamations to Miller
*Timothy Endicott: A Treaty of Paramount Importance
Keith Ewing: A Review of the Miller Decision
Thomas Fairclough: Judicial Review and Article 50: Some Preliminary Issues
Thomas Fairclough: Article 50 and the Royal Prerogative
David Feldman: Brexit, the Royal Prerogative, and Parliamentary Sovereignty
John Finnis: Terminating Treaty-based UK Rights
John Finnis: Terminating Treaty-based UK Rights: A Supplementary Note
John Finnis: Brexit and the Balance of Our Constitution
*John Finnis: The Miller Majority: Reliant on European Perspectives and Counsel’s Failings
Christopher Forsyth: The High Court’s Miller Judgment
*Christopher Forsyth: Miller: Was It a Draw?
Sandra Fredman: The Least Dangerous Branch: Whose Role is it to Protect Parliamentary Sovereignty?
*Oliver Garner: Conditional Primacy of EU Law: The United Kingdom Supreme Court’s Own “Solange (so long as)” Doctrine?
*Carl Gardner: The “Principle of Legality” Is Out of Control
Aris Georgopoulos: (Un)Crossing the Rubicon: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Refer to the ECJ
Mike Gordon: Brexit: The Constitutional Necessity of an Early General Election
Sébastien Grammond: Canadian Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Brexit Process
Max Harris: A First Take on Miller – With a Note on the Human Rights Perspective
David Howarth: On Parliamentary Silence
*David Howarth: The Government’s Fatal Concession in Miller
Rachel Jones: The Importance of Silences in the ‘Brexit’ Appeals
Philip Joseph: Brexit: A View from Afar
Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC and Naina Patel: Miller Is Right
Jeff King and Nick Barber: In Defence of Miller
*Jeff King: What Next? Legislative Authority for Triggering Article 50
Richard Lang: The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court Must Refer
Sir Stephen Laws: Article 50 and the Political Constitution
*Sir Stephen Laws: Questioning Parliament in the Courts?
Jean Leclair: Brexit and the Unwritten Constitutional Principle of Democracy: A Canadian Perspective
Simon Lee: Dicey Sentiments
Christina Lienen: Brexit and the Domestic Judiciary: The Aftermath of Triggering Article 50
Ronan McCrea: Can a Brexit Deal Provide a Clean Break with CJEU and EU Fundamental Rights Norms?
Ronan McCrea: Arguing that Article 50 Notification Is Reversible Involves Risks for the Government
Aileen McHarg: The Devolution Implications of the Miller Decision
*Aileen McHarg: Constitutional Adjudication in a Mixed Constitution
Campbell McLachlan QC: The Foreign Affairs Treaty Prerogative and the Law of the Land
*Janet McLean: Brexit, Article 50 and Asking a Different Question
Jo Murkens: Brexit: The Devolution Dimension
*Patrick O’Brien: All for Want of a Metaphor: Miller and the Nature of EU Law
Colm O’Cinneide: Why Parliamentary Approval for the Triggering of Article 50 TEU Should Be Required
Paul O’Connell and Nimer Sultany: Miller and the Politics of the Judiciary
Gavin Phillipson: Dive into Deep Constitutional Waters: Article 50, the Prerogative and Parlmnt (MLR article)
Gavin Phillipson: The Miller Case, Part 1: A Response to Some Criticisms
Thomas Poole: Losing our Religion? Public Law and Brexit
*Paul Reid: Time to Give the Sewel Convention Some (Political) Bite?
Simon Renton: An Unintended Consequence of Article 50?
Simon Renton: Historical Perspectives and the Miller Case
Julian Rivers: Brexit and Parliament: Doubting John Finnis’s Dualism
*Dominic Ruck-Keene: The Brexit Judgment – “The Law of the Realm Cannot Be Changed but by Parliament.”
*Meg Russell: What Might Parliament Do with the Article 50 Bill?
Jake Rylatt: The Irrevocability of an Article 50 Notification
Aurel Sari: Biting the Bullet: Why the UK Is Free to Revoke Its Withdrawal Notification under Article 50 TEU
*Rosie Slowe: Article 50, the Supreme Court Judgment in Miller and Why Revocability Still Matters
Stijn Smismans: About the Revocability of Withdrawal: Why the EU (Law) Interpretation of Article 50 Matters
Ewan Smith: What Would Happen if the Government Unlawfully Issued an Article 50 Notification without Parliamentary Approval?
Ewan Smith: Treaty Rights in Miller
Charles Streeten: Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Can an Article 50 Notification Be Revoked?
Robert Brett Taylor: Constitutional Conventions, Article 50 and Brexit
Stephen Tierney: Was the Brexit Referendum Democratic?
*Stephen Tierney: The Brexit Decision: Holyrood May Still Have a Role to Play
Adam Tucker: Triggering Brexit: A Decision for the Government, but under Parliamentary Scrutiny
Albert Weale: The Constitution of Democracy and the Pretensions of the Plebiscite
*Jack Williams: The Supreme Court’s Approach to Prerogative Powers in Miller: An Analysis of Four E’s
Alison Young: Brexit, Article 50 and the ‘Joys’ of a Flexible, Evolving, Un-codified Constitution
Alison Young: Triggering Article 50: Miller
Alison Young: Triggering Article 50: Miller (cont)
Alison Young: Miller, Constitutional Adjudication – Reality over Legality?
Alison Young: R (Miller) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – Substance over Form?
*Alison Young: Miller: Maintaining the Delicate Divide between Law and Politics?
Robert Craig, LSE Law School