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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll