header-logo header-logo

17 November 2016 / Nicholas Strauss KC
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit: the final say

nlj_7723_strauss

Article 50: an incorrect concession? Nicholas Strauss QC proposes an alternative line of attack

  • ​There is little point in a referendum which is advisory only, as it just throws the ball back to Parliament, so that the public vote is little more than an opinion poll.
  • The government’s best hope may be to reconsider its concession that the referendum was not binding before the appeal to the Supreme Court is heard next month.

In Santos v Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 19 (Nov), the Divisional Court decided that the government’s prerogative powers did not enable it to implement the result of the EU referendum by giving notice under Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Another Act of Parliament is required, in addition to the EU Referendum Act 2015 (the 2015 Act).

Government’s concession

The government had accepted that the result of the referendum did not itself provide the source of a power to give the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll