Source: https://londonbrussels.wordpress.com/
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 20:51:08
Document Index: 220012009

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 50', 'Art 50', 'Art 50', 'Art 50', 'Art 50', 'Art 50']

london-brussels one-way or return – A cross-channel Europe blog by Piet Eeckhout
March 28, 2017 · Leave a comment · A short blogpost to highlight the lecture I am giving this evening, on Article 50. It is based on a paper written with Dr Eleni Frantziou (Westminster). The lecture will be live-streamed here, and will continue to be available on the UCL Youtube channel.
January 31, 2017 · 1 Comment · The judiciary has spoken, most clearly. Parliament must authorise the triggering of Article 50, in essence because it failed to spell out the legal effects of the referendum in the EU Referendum Act 2015. If it had done so, the Miller litigation would not have been necessary.
December 23, 2016 · Leave a comment · Just published a new Working Paper, offering a constitutionalist reading of Art 50 TEU – co-author Dr Eleni Frantziou: see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news-repository/2015-16/article-50-working-paper-published
November 14, 2016 · 1 Comment · It befits even academics to change their mind, on careful consideration and reflection. Along with many others I have thought for some time that the Miller litigation turns on whether the Art 50 notification is revocable or not. If the Government can, at any point, inform the EU that the Brexit process is discontinued, then its act of starting that process does not directly interfere with the rights which the European Communities Act (ECA) incorporates in UK domestic law. It is this alleged interference which takes the Art 50 notification outside the sphere of the Crown prerogative: the Government cannot use the prerogative to interfere with acts of Parliament.
October 24, 2016 · Leave a comment · It is now about a week since the hearings concluded in the litigation, before the High Court, on whether the UK Government can trigger Art 50 TEU, or whether instead an Act of Parliament is required. The transcript of the hearing makes for fascinating reading. We will have to see what the judges decide, but I cannot refrain from making the point that the Government’s case is weak. Government lawyers are of course confined in what they can argue, and what not, by what their client, i.e. politics, wants. It seems like the client has not dealt them a good hand. For the Government’s case is built around a set of propositions which are in huge tension with one another. They are:
October 12, 2016 · Leave a comment · The litigation concerning the triggering of Art 50 TEU is under way, with hearings this week and next. It is the constitutional case of the century. The government’s skeleton argument has been published. This reveals that one of the pillars of its defence is that the decision to withdraw from the EU has already been taken. Consequently, all that is in issue is the authority to notify the EU of that decision, and to start the two-year negotiation period provided for in Art 50. That, the government’s case goes, is a decision of high policy which is rightly in the government’s hands, and not in those of parliament.
June 16, 2016June 20, 2016 · Leave a comment · In a recent TV debate, a member of the audience complained to Michael Gove, one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, that Leave were like a WW I general shouting “over the top” to his troops, without anyone knowing what awaits them there. Gove called it an arresting image, and I agree. Here is an attempt to make some sense of what may await the UK “over the top”, with respect to international trade.