Last Friday marked the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement. I know that some people in our country are still a bit upset. But what happened last week matters. We all know that we’ve just had three and a half difficult years. But we had them together – we shared them. Three and a half years
Something deeply embarrassing is happening in our country. It is not entirely clear why, but in an act of extreme pettiness, my fellow elite have decided that come hell or high water Big Ben must not Bong. Let’s be honest; almost no one will notice either way. It has never troubled my mind whether a
The Withdrawal Bill that has been published is pretty dull stuff – even by my standards. There are nonetheless rather frantic efforts to pretend it is in any way terrible. It isn’t. For one reason and one reason only. Like the 1972 Act, all the Bill does is bring the Withdrawal Agreement into UK law.
In order to get anywhere in life, you have to compromise. Redrafting a deal foisted on you with no time and no majority has been Herculean. In doing so, the UK have made serious concessions so we can maintain good relationships with the EU. That must not get forgotten in the understandable (and shared) joy
Brenda Hale is an incredibly clever and more importantly, kind, human being. On a human level you would do well to make a beeline for her at any party or stuffy function. Few judges have done more to help charitable causes and access to law. As I’m not a politician, you can trust me when
I still don’t quite understand the position of some ardent Remain supporters. I do not understand why allowing the UK to leave, and then starting up a campaign to rejoin was rejected. After all, that is what the last line of Article 50 invites the state to do by invoking the process in Article 49
Something ugly has come out of the Supreme Court’s decision to change the law and our constitution yesterday. Instead of basking magnanimously in the fact that they won, there have been wholly unwarranted calls from Remainers for ‘heads on plates’. The cry has gone out for the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, to publish his legal
Forty years of membership of the EU has taught us a lot. Many of us have learned a new language; most of us have learned new recipes for our supper; and our Judges have learned how to seize power from democratic institutions. For there has always been a fundamental cultural clash between us and most
In the run-up to the referendum, a common argument against Brexit went like this: “We should not leave the EU, because if we try, the EU will be capricious and irrational, it will not prioritise the welfare of its people, it will instead punish us, we must be afraid of that wrath, forget any merit,
The heady drama when Britain and the EU agreed on a series of Brexit extensions earlier this year is hard to forget. But amidst the chaos, it’s worth asking: did Britain accidentally leave the EU on 1 June? A badly-drafted EU law – which also challenges the idea of EU competence – seems to suggest
We are now meandering towards a real Brexit deadline. In typical British fashion, we’ve let the other two times that they bumped into us with their trolley in the supermarket go. In similarly typical fashion, the third time is about to be “not on”. But as we head towards the inevitable, it is worth understanding
If a lawyer advises you to pay money which you do not owe, and you do so, then you can sue that lawyer to compensate you for the loss. That’s because the lawyer owes his client a duty to not give wrong advice. Does a politician or a journalist owe that duty? Can we sue
The loudest sound this morning is the silence from Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney-General. The test for Theresa May’s discussion with Brussels is whether it means the UK will be caught indefinitely in the backstop. And the person who decides this is Mr Cox. No10 misrepresented the nature of the backstop when it was signed: some
Given that the ECJ often takes years to give an opinion, the speed of its Brexit judgement is unprecedented. Now and again, the mask slips: in theory the ECJ’s court judicial, cares only about good law. In practise this is nakedly political – explicitly so this time, given the vote tomorrow. It’s being breathlessly reported
The European Court of Justice is back in the headlines this morning. Its Advocate General, Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona, has declared that the UK might be able to cancel Brexit by revoking Article 50 unilaterally. So is that it settled? Not at all: nothing, with the ECJ, is ever that simple. In fact, the whole episode
While it might have garnered less attention than the political drama around the withdrawal agreement, next week’s European Court of Justice decision on whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 – that is, cancel Brexit – could have serious ramifications. A bit of background on the case: in November 2017, a group of Scottish
Jo Johnson has noticed that Theresa May has managed to unite the country, in that both Leavers and Remainers worry that her deal will let the EU pass our laws and regulate our markets but leave us no say in that process. But why does he think that staying in the EU is a remedy
For all the praise heaped on Peter Hain for revealing the details of a legal case subject to injunction, there’s been depressingly little acknowledgement of what this really means: namely that a senior politician has fundamentally undermined the rule of law. Hain – who, unlike many of his peers, has never been a lawyer– has
