Majority v Minority (BREXIT)

Question 1

What were the basic arguments by the Majority in the Miller case?

Answer 1

1) That RP could not change statutory (or common law) rights
2) Majority accepts RP is acceptable in making and unmaking of treaties ONLY where it does not change the law
3) Although RP can variate rights of individuals withdrawal is fundamental
4) Ex parte Simms principal of legality
5) If RP could be used, could be used without referendum

Question 2

What are the basic views of Lord Reed in his dissent?

Answer 2

1) That the ECA does not authorise membership of the EU, the treaty of accession does which was signed through use of RP
2) He enforces that s2(1) is necessary so that EU treaties can be incorporated into UK law in line with UK dualist views - nothing to do with membership

Question 3

Lord Reed makes two responses to the claim that “if membership is not authorised by parliament why was ratification for UK treaty of accession delayed till after ECA passed”

Answer 3

1) Ratification is part of the RP and can be done at ANY time
2) Political History - Labour actually argued against ratification

Question 4

What is Lord Reed’s argument in respect of the 2008 EU (Amendment) Act?

Answer 4

He argues that every time a new treaty is signed the UK parliament must amend s2(1) of the act.
The Lisbon treaty set out Article 50, which means Article 50 was given effect and approval by Parliament when it amended s2(1).