Articles for tag: Art. 50 EUV, Brexit, UKSC, Vorlage an den EuGH

The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must refer

Article 50 TEU says that member states decide to withdraw from the Union "according to their own constitutional requirements". It is for the Luxembourg Court to clarify what this means. Thus, in the current case on Brexit the UK Supreme Court is obliged to refer to the European Court of Justice. One could argue that this should never have been made a Union problem. But it was, and, like it or not, that makes it the Court of Justice’s problem too.

6. November 2016

, , ,

Sovereignty means Sovereignty: Über den Verlust von Rechten entscheidet das Parlament

Großbritannien darf erst nach einem Parlamentsbeschluss aus der EU austreten. Das hat der englische High Court auf eine Klage von Bürgern hin entschieden. Bleibt die Entscheidung bestehen, könnte sie den Zeitplan für den EU-Austritt durcheinander bringen, noch bevor dieser eigentlich begonnen hat. Verhindert wird der Brexit aber höchstwahrscheinlich nicht mehr.

3. November 2016

, , , ,

The High Court’s Brexit Decision: A Lesson in Constitutional Law for the UK Government

In today's Brexit decision, the High Court has delivered a tutorial on the UK constitution, exemplary in its clarity and reasoning. Its key finding: the government cannot take away rights that citizens enjoy in the EU and would be lost on withdrawal without involving Parliament. In failing to understand the constitution of its own country, the government was taught an embarrassing lesson today.

3. November 2016

, , , ,

Why all Member States should clarify their Constitutional Requirements for Withdrawing from the EU

The UK’s ‘chaotic Brexit’ may perhaps be the inevitable result of being the first state to even contemplate withdrawal from the European Union. Regardless, the other Member States can now look to this uncertainty as something to avoid. By contrast to the United Kingdom’s current situation, they should look to the clarity of procedure for legitimate secession in Canada and seek to provide a similarly exhaustive statement of how the ‘constitutional requirements’ of Article 50 would be fulfilled in their own constitutional orders.

2. November 2016

, ,

Why the Brexit debate might mark the end of Britain’s unwritten constitution

The current debate in the UK about Parliament's right to vote on the Art. 50 decision suggests that not only the Brexit decision may become subject to revision, but the uncodified constitution may become subject to scrutiny as well. So far, the absence of a written constitution was generally viewed as a sign of “stability of the British polity.” However, the Brexit contestations may change that, and, on the long run, the status of an ‘unwritten’ or ‘uncodified constitution’ may well come to an end. The present constitutional turn in British politics suggests that the long period of stability of the British polity is challenged, just as the Brexit campaign promised the contrary.

22. Oktober 2016

, , ,

Theresa May’s Great Repeal Bill – a Scottish own goal?

Theresa May’s announcement of a Great Repeal Bill on Sunday has the hallmarks of a stroke of genius: It creates some momentum in the internal Brexit debate without substantively changing anything, it appeases the die-heart Brexiteers in her party, and it may kill off legal challenges pending in the courts of England and Northern Ireland demanding that Parliament be involved before Article 50 TEU is triggered. The Great Reform Bill however raises interesting constitutional questions with regard to the devolved nations of the UK, and in particular Scotland. Has Theresa May scored an own goal by allowing the Scots to block her first big step towards Brexit? Or is this part of an even more cunning plan to delay having to trigger Article 50 TEU for a very long time?

3. Oktober 2016

, , , , ,

Triggering Art. 50 TEU: Interpreting the UK’s ‘own constitutional requirements’

Can the British government initiate the process of leaving the European Union without consulting Parliament? On September 28th the government released its legal position that the only constitutional way to give effect to the Brexit referendum result is through the exercise of the executive power. Some of the government's arguments appear to be on shaky grounds. The mere fact that the process has been caught up in legal wrangling before it has even begun shows that there is still a long, long road ahead before any sense of stability will return to British (constitutional) politics as well as the relationship between the UK and the EU in whatever form that may eventually take.

30. September 2016

, ,

Jein – eine fehlende Variante bei dem Brexit-Referendum

Großbritannien hat eine Schicksalsentscheidung getroffen. Zwar hat die Volksbefragung nach herrschender Meinung nur beratenden Charakter, doch hat die britische Regierung im Vorfeld ankündigte das Ergebnis zu befolgen und wird es daher kaum übergehen. „Brexit means Brexit“, sagte auch Theresa May, die neue britische Premierministerin und frühere Remain-Befürworterin. Was „Brexit“ bedeutet, bleibt aber unklar.

17. August 2016

,