Read on Twitter
The government’s draft bill to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act contains a clause that attempts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts
A former Supreme Court justice has told me it is “constitutionally objectionable, as well as unnecessary”
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/is-parliament-really-sovereign
A former Supreme Court justice has told me it is “constitutionally objectionable, as well as unnecessary”
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/is-parliament-really-sovereign
Nicholas Wilson, who retired early this year, says it raises “big constitutional questions”
Among them: “Are there any circumstances in which a court should not obey an Act of Parliament?” (!)
Among them: “Are there any circumstances in which a court should not obey an Act of Parliament?” (!)
Wilson continued:
“Are these parts of clause 3 an attack on the rule of law? And if so, are they entitled to be regarded as law at all?”
“It is certainly possible that the answer is ‘no’—that if these parts of clause 3 were enacted, they would not rank as law at all”
“Are these parts of clause 3 an attack on the rule of law? And if so, are they entitled to be regarded as law at all?”
“It is certainly possible that the answer is ‘no’—that if these parts of clause 3 were enacted, they would not rank as law at all”
Read the full thing here, a feature based also on conversations with former clerk of the House of Commons Robert Rodgers, deputy high court judge @helenmountfield and many others
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/is-parliament-really-sovereign
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/is-parliament-really-sovereign
CC @JoshuaRozenberg @DinahRoseQC @BarristerSecret @bricksilk @LordCFalconer @thatginamiller @JoePTomlinson @StevePeers @Jack_R_Williams @GeorgePeretzQC @jeff_a_king @Brigid_Fowler @RuthFox01 @cath_haddon @DrHannahWhite @LioraLazarus @davidallengreen @legalhackette @colemancr
