God bless case law. The Article 50 appeal is currently discussing lobster farming in the 19th century and OGH has just tweeted something about Henry VIII and the Privy Council.
Those tedious Eurocrats could never understand the wonderful tatterdemalion that is our constitution.
If anyone is going to bet on the Article 50 case, I suggest that you first carefully define what "win" means.
It seems quite likely to me (judging by the judges' questions of the barristers) that the current round will be decided on the basis that the royal prerogative continues to operate in relation to the decision but that the courts will have judicial oversight of how that decision is exercised.
If anyone is going to bet on the Article 50 case, I suggest that you first carefully define what "win" means.
It seems quite likely to me (judging by the judges' questions of the barristers) that the current round will be decided on the basis that the royal prerogative continues to operate in relation to the decision but that the courts will have judicial oversight of how that decision is exercised.
Such a decision would please no one.
With reference to Alastair's warning, you appear to have defined "win" fairly clearly.
Comments
The Article 50 appeal is currently discussing lobster farming in the 19th century and OGH has just tweeted something about Henry VIII and the Privy Council.
Those tedious Eurocrats could never understand the wonderful tatterdemalion that is our constitution.
It seems quite likely to me (judging by the judges' questions of the barristers) that the current round will be decided on the basis that the royal prerogative continues to operate in relation to the decision but that the courts will have judicial oversight of how that decision is exercised.
Such a decision would please no one.
OK, you are on