header-logo header-logo

Water & oil: law & politics

17 February 2017 / Richard Wilson KC
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
nlj_7734_wilson

Politics & the law were kept well apart in the Supreme Court’s erudite judgment in Miller, as Richard Wilson QC explains

  • Parliamentary supremacy and prerogative powers.
  • The decision of the majority on the principal issue is consistent with long-established UK law.

It is a well-established principle of UK constitutional law that Parliament—not the government—is supreme over our domestic law: Case of Proclamations (1610), The Zamora case (1916), and the Tin Council case (1990) (reported as H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, [1989] 3 All ER 523).

The Royal Prerogative (“prerogative powers”) encompasses the residue of powers that remain vested in the Crown, but are now exercisable by ministers of the UK government, provided the exercise is consistent with Parliamentary legislation.

The exercise of prerogative powers cannot change domestic law. That is a matter for Parliament. Treaties are not part of domestic law. So ministers may exercise prerogative powers to make or withdraw from international treaties, provided that such exercise

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

DWF—Ed Williams

DWF—Ed Williams

Public sector disputes capability bolstered by partner hire in Leeds

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Firm strengthens corporate, real estate and insolvency teams with partner trio

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Consultant and solicitor join commercial real estate team

NEWS
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
back-to-top-scroll