header-logo header-logo

08 December 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

A nation divided?

nlj_7726_zander

Could the Sewel Convention scupper Brexit, asks Michael Zander QC

  • The Scottish intervention in the Brexit appeal case.

Triggering Art 50 to start the process of withdrawal from the EU requires not only an Act of Parliament but the consent of the Scottish Parliament according to the 58-page written case submitted by the Lord Advocate in the Supreme Court Brexit case appeal. If the Supreme Court made that part of its judgment in the case being argued this week, the political consequences would be far-reaching.

The Supreme Court received written arguments from all three devolved governments—Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland (accessible on the Supreme Court’s website, as is also the government’s reply).

The Northern Ireland submissions supported the UK government’s contention that no Act of Parliament was required to trigger Art 50 but, if that was wrong, it could be done without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Counsel General’s submission for Wales argued that the Divisional Court’s decision that triggering Art 50 required an Act of Parliament

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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll