header-logo header-logo

Brexit: the final say

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll