Phillipson, Gavin (2016) 'A dive into deep constitutional waters : Article 50, the prerogative and parliament.', Modern law review., 79 (6). pp. 1064-1089.
This article analyses the Article 50 TEU debate and the argument that for the UK Government to trigger the formal withdrawal process without explicit parliamentary authorisation would be unlawful, because it would inevitably result in the removal of rights enjoyed under EU law and the frustration of the purpose of the statutes giving those rights domestic effect. After a brief survey of Article 50, this article argues first of all that the power to trigger Article 50 remains within the prerogative, contesting Robert Craig's argument in this issue that it is now a statutory power. It then suggests a number of arguments as to why the frustration principle may be of only doubtful application in this case, and in doing so it re-examines one of the key authorities prayed in aid of it - the Fire Brigades Union case.
|Full text:||(AM) Accepted Manuscript|
Download PDF (944Kb)
|Publisher Web site:||https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12230|
|Publisher statement:||This is the accepted version of the following article: Phillipson, Gavin (2016). A dive into deep constitutional waters: Article 50, the prerogative and parliament. Modern Law Review 79(6): 1064-1089, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12230. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.|
|Date accepted:||15 September 2016|
|Date deposited:||15 September 2016|
|Date of first online publication:||21 November 2016|
|Date first made open access:||21 November 2017|
Save or Share this output
|Look up in GoogleScholar|