header-logo header-logo

A nation divided?

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

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Partner joins as lead of international tax desk

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

International arbitration partner joins disputes team in London

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Firm celebrates strong retention and new talent across practice areas

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
back-to-top-scroll