Transcripts (perhaps draft) of the Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal hearings at the Supreme Court

It would. It would. It would be different if it was a purely domestic Dangerous Dogs Act, so I should have clarified that by Act, I meant domestic legislation rather than Act on the EU level; if it is dangerous dogs regulation it flows back in through 2(1) and it becomes directly effective. My Lord, Lord Sumption is of course right, if it is the dangerous dogs directive, it requires free-standing secondary legislation no doubt enacted using section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.

But those are fundamental constitutional distinctions, and what they illustrate is that there is a different species and form of parliamentary intervention in each of those situations. What that also illustrates, we respectfully submit, is the basic proposition that all depends on the nature of the parliamentary intervention that there has been. If one wants to break that down a little more in our foreign affairs context, in the sphere of foreign affairs, that requires consideration of two separate things, to do with the nature of parliamentary intervention.

(a), has Parliament intervened to control the exercise of the prerogative power itself, on the international plane, and (b) what is the nature of the parliamentary intervention in relation to the effects that the exercise of prerogative power on the international plane might have, in domestic law.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech