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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll