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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll