header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 March 2019 / David Wolchover
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Did activating Article 50 constitute an indictable offence?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Brexit countdown alarm clock
Was the prime minister’s triggering of Art 50 wilfully unconstitutional, and did it therefore amount to misconduct in public office? David Wolchover puts forward the case
 

During the years of the coalition government, Prime Minister David Cameron was much exercised by his desire to reverse the growing popularity of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), to achieve some degree of harmony and peace within the Conservative Party over the issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union, and to consolidate his own position. The solution was to give pride of place in the party’s 2015 election manifesto to the promise of a referendum on continued EU membership.

Having won the election, the new Conservative government immediately set about making legislative provision for the referendum, enacting the European Union Referendum Act 2015 (EURA 2015). The poll was held on 23 June 2016, and of those who cast a vote, 51.89% opted for leave, while 48.11% chose remain. Although the turnout was a relatively high 72%,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll