Tag: HS2
-
Anthony Arnull: Is the UK Supreme Court Pro-EU?
Of all the criticisms levelled by elements of the press and others at the judgment of the Supreme Court in Miller II and Cherry, perhaps the least convincing is that the Justices are pro-EU. It has been widely pointed out that we have no idea whether, and if so how, the Justices voted in the…
-
Alison Young: Status of EU Law Post Brexit: Part Two
In an earlier blog post, I argued that whilst the Government’s amendments provided some clarity as to the status of retained EU law post Brexit, they failed to provide a complete account, giving rise to a potential for further uncertainty in the future. This post will examine two further issues – whether the amendments respond…
-
Mike Gordon: Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Implementation of the EU Withdrawal Agreement (Part II)
Editors’ note: This is the second part of a two-part contribution. The first part can be found here. Part one of this blog post considered the constitutional challenge potentially posed by the commitment in the Phase One Joint Report that the UK Parliament will enact a Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill to give effect to…
-
Denis Edwards: Miller, Law and Revisionism
It is clear from the majority judgment in Miller, and also from several blog comments since, that the judgment’s linchpin is that the 1972 Act “provided that [EU] rights, duties and rules…apply in the UK as part of domestic law” ([62]). This, along with the EU institutions being the source of the ‘domestic law’ coming…
-
Pavlos Eleftheriadis: The Systematic Constitution
The Supreme Court judgment in Gina Miller is not merely an affirmation of what the High Court said. The eight member majority confirmed the earlier decision, but also took the opportunity to restate a fundamental principle, which had been left implicit by the court below. The High Court said that the substantive rights arising out…
-
Thomas Poole: Losing our Religion? Public Law and Brexit
Prerogative is the enemy of the people. This has been settled as matter of law for a very long time. The constitutional settlement of 1688 made a decision for responsible and representative government. We have had no constitutional moment of similar magnitude since. All constitutional changes – some very significant – have taken place within…
-
David Feldman: Brexit, the Royal Prerogative, and Parliamentary Sovereignty
The issues in Miller In R. (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) judges had to decide, as a matter of law, on the constitutionally correct procedure for deciding whether and when to notify the President of the European Council that the UK intends to leave the EU,…
-
Mark Elliott and Hayley J. Hooper: Critical reflections on the High Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
The judgment of the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), decided on 3 November 2016, has been subjected to astonishing and wholly misguided criticism by politicians and the press. Let us be clear, then, at the outset of this post that we entertain no…
-
Robert Craig: Report of Proceedings: Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Introduction Thursday 13 October 2016 marked the beginning of the hearing over the constitutional question of whether Article 50 may be triggered by the Government without further statutory authorisation. This post provides a report of the day’s proceedings. The two further days are scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week. The first section sets out…
-
Nick barber: The Brexiteers: Right Answer, Wrong Question
Cross-posted from I-CONnect blog. Towards the end of the 1990s I was invited to a workshop just outside of Berlin at which a group of young academics gathered to discuss the future of the European Union. The workshop was funded by a German think-tank that had generously, if perhaps misguidedly, provided significant amounts of food…