Brexit, UK United Kingdom, conservative party, EU european union, immigration, british parliament, constitutional rules, british government, process of Brexit, protection of human rights, judicial review, international trade
Since 1998, there has been no physical border between Ireland and Northern Ireland = this has been a condition for peace between the two. When Brexit happens, this border will reappear, but people from both sides of the border are against it.
The EU proposed a "backstop" = if the UK leaves without an agreement, the whole of the UK would remain in a single customs territory with the EU (no tariffs on trade in goods between the UK and the EU) but Northern Ireland alone would remain aligned to some extra EU rules to ensure the Irish border remains open as it is today. Boris Johnson wanted to get rid of this backstop negotiated by Theresa May (because the UK will still be part of the single market to some extent) but the EU said removing this backstop is unacceptable.
[...] Example: A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department: an act of parliament against terrorism was discriminatory and contrary to the convention = the court made a declaration of incompatibility. Even though the government was furious against this declaration, the parliament still changed the legislation (even if from a legal point of view, they were not obliged to do it). Prisoners' voting rights Any any person who is detained is derived from their voting rights. The seriousness of the crime is not relevant. [...]
[...] 3rd question = prorogation of parliament by Boris Johnson. He decided to suspend the parliament because he didn't want parliament to interfere with his way of dealing with the Brexit. The parliament is originally prorogued every year for a few days, but Boris decided to prorogue it for 5 weeks (this length has never happened before). The speaker (head of parliament) doesn't usually speak his mind about the government but this time he criticized this decision. The queen accepted this prorogation (she didn't have a choice). [...]
[...] Only a person who has the sufficient interest in the matter can apply for a decision to be reviewed by a judicial review. Grounds for Judicial review Ground Illegality: a decision is illegal when it is made outside the powers of the public body. Ground Irrationality: it is when the decision is so unreasonable that no normal person would have made it. It is very difficult to prove this ground. Ground Procedural Impropriety: when a public body does not follow procedural requirements which it is obliged to follow. [...]
[...] The decision made with prerogative powers are justiciable. prerogative power is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict" decision to prorogue will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive" Protection of Human Rights Before the Human Rights Act, British people were protected by the rights deriving from the case law (example: Entick 1765 = everybody has the right to privacy, the agents of the king didn't have the right to enter his house without any authorization from the parliament). [...]
[...] The community of ministers of the European union accepted this deal. The notion of "margin of appreciation" was added to the preamble of the European convention on human rights = the States can interpret the text their own way but should not cross a certain limit. The Hirst case and the reluctance of applying the decisions of the courts have had important effects on other countries. This was an issue because of the debate to know who decides = the representative of the people or the European union? [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee