Here are some thoughts about the constitutional implications of the EU (Future Relationship) Bill and some suggestions for what might have been done. Warning - blog post posing as THREAD.
Jeff King
3,348 posts
Jeff King
@jeff_a_king
Professor of Law, University College London; Deputy Director, the UCL Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism. Public law and constitutional theory.
- Replying to @JoshuaRozenbergThe second letter was carefully worded to give the air of compliance, but it wrongly says it was P that sent it (the Benn Act mandates that the PM send it) and the letter is clearly designed to procure a refusal of the request. The phone calls are even more concerning.
- Delighted to share this news! Professor Jeff King appointed Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee | UCL Faculty of Laws - UCL - London's Global University
- I'm delighted and honoured to take on this role! The Bingham Centre is a first rate research institute scrutinizing the rule of law implications of public policies and looking into tomorrow's rule of law challenges.We are delighted to announce the appointment of @jeff_a_king as our new Director of Research. Professor King is an outstanding Rule of Law scholar and practitioner whose career has bridged the divide between Rule of Law theory and practice. More details: binghamcentre.biicl.org/newsitems/149/…
- The frightening thing is that this isnt a reckless gamble. It is a very carefully orchestrated political powerplay, scenarios probably tested in focus groups to gauge electoral consequences, and whose long game is still uncertain. A bit more strategy, less outrage, is needed.
- the Miller/Cherry judgment is vastly more significant than Miller 1. The comments on the relation between preorogative and common law and on the scope of parliamentary sovereignty are of immense importance outside of this case. The legal test at [50] is also extraordinary.
- What's wrong here is the view that an Act of Parliament cannot violate the rule of law. Of course Dicey saw that legislation could annihilate the rule of law: impinge fair trials, legislate retroactively, enact unchecked discretion, unpredictable law etc. spectator.co.uk/article/no-bor…
- UCL Public Law Group seminar on Martin Loughlin's amazing Against Constitutionalism (Harvard UP 2022) on 13 June in hybrid. Don't miss it! @rpbellamy1 @UCLPublicLaw @colmocinneide @TomRHickman @DrTomPoole @ConUnit_UCL
- After two years of exciting work as a Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, I have decided to step down and concentrate on other projects (and on being a good parent and husband). Delighted that the Committee has appointed the stellar Prof Alison Young.
- My heretical case for a written constitution for the UK: democratic rather than rights-based; produced by constituent assembly; flexible rather than rigid; subject to a sunset clause; and Brexit being an opportunity rather than reason for the written constitution. Free access!Are written constitutions simply a restraint on government? A new paper from Current Legal Problems argues the case for the #democratic expression of constitutions @jeff_a_king bit.ly/2KdTm8f
- Replying to @jeff_a_kingThird, the general implementation powers contained in cl 31 allow ministers to make any law that is required to implement the agreement by regulations - and that this power can be used to do anything an Act of Parliament can do (including amend the bill/Act itself).
- Having considered the PM's statement on responding to the Rwanda judgment with a treaty and emergency legislation, a few thoughts on how Parliament might respond below - prompted by @Prof_Phillipson 's thread - long thread:So plan B from press conference: elevate UK's MoU with Rwanda to a treaty with specific safeguards, then introduce emergency legislation to have Parlt put in primary legislation that Rwanda is to be treated as a safe country. Quick 🧵@IanDunt @woodstockjag @JoshuaRozenberg
- Replying to @jeff_a_kingTranslation: We don't know what changes to the law are in fact required by this EU-UK agreement, but whatever they are, Parliament by operation of this clause makes them effective from the date this law comes into force.
- This is an outrageous attack on the freedom of political speech, against a highly respected academic colleague. Seeking to prosecute a scholarly if colourful critique of a sitting AG, published in a reputable national broadsheet, is nearly rock bottom in any real democracy.Freedom of Expression under attack in Brazil Attorney General petitioned against law professor @conradohubner for 'defamation' The academic and journalistic community have overwhelmingly backed Conrado Thread below of this aberration +4 Offer your support #postegeraldarepublica
