header-logo header-logo

“One-liner Bill” under scrutiny

26 January 2017
Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Leading litigator warns that citizen’s rights are at risk if Art 50 trigger is rushed

The “one-liner” Bill introduced to Parliament this week—enabling the government to trigger Art 50—may not offer the security needed to maintain citizens’ basic rights, according to David Greene, one of the country’s foremost litigators.

“Post judgment we are likely to see a one-liner bill within days. Passing the Bill and serving the notice inevitably removes us from the EU and its associated rights. It fires the bullet for Brexit. We should question the entitlement of Parliament to remove these rights—the rights of establishment, the right to travel freely etc, in a one-line Bill.”

NLJ consultant editor Greene, one of the claimant lawyers acting in this week’s successful Art 50 challenge against the government, said: “These rights go to the basics of life for EU citizens here and UK citizens within Europe, and I think it’s important for Parliament to consider them and be in a position to offer assurances that they will be protected before Art 50 is triggered.”

Speaking to Professor Dominic Regan during a post-judgment NLJ webinar, Greene went on to say: “Given the uncertainties surrounding the mechanics and nature of Brexit, it would not be impossible that after two years we could get to a situation where negotiations fail or Parliament votes a deal down. The removal of rights then will be automatic”

In a majority vote of eight to three this week, the Supreme Court found the government required an Act of Parliament to notify of its intention to leave the EU. Greene said he thought that the court might want to bring a unanimous decision but it became clear that there were differences: “In the end we expected a 7/4 or 8/3 split,” he said.

Greene added that the constant revolution in civil justice for 20 years—from the small claims limit, costs budgeting, fixed costs, to changes in practice and procedure, needed to be taken more slowly when we have the prospect of the added revolution of Brexit.

The webinar, which includes a wide ranging discussion covering: pending Brexit litigation; the dissenting judgments; the Sewel Convention, can be downloaded here .

See also LexisNexis Current awareness News team & Public Law PSL team coverage:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 50—what happens now?
Article 50 litigation—UK Supreme Court rules on the limits of the prerogative and devolved powers
The Dublin case—Brexit and the revocability of Article 50

Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll