A few months ago, we launched a topical landing page on Brexit. But as we continue to monitor developments, we decided to put further development of our Brexit landing page on hold. So the page no longer exists (for now).
We do encourage our authors to publish on the topic of Brexit. And a great example is this blog post from Maria Kendrick on Supreme Court judgment in the Miller case.
This Blog post on Brexit starts as follows:
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union  UKSC 5
The judgment of the Supreme Court handed down on 24 January 2017 by a majority of 8 -3, can be summarised thus: a statute enacted by the Westminster Parliament is required to authorise the decision to withdraw from the EU, and therefore the giving of Notice under Article 50 (2) TEU. Lord Hughes (dissenting) provides an irresistibly succinct explanation as to the tensions underlying the case and, in my opinion, the reason why it was a majority, rather than a unanimous decision on the issue of the giving of Notice: ‘the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these: Rule 1 the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law; and Rule 2 the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government’ (emphasis original). The opposing premises adopted by the majority and dissents as to the application of these two rules goes to the essence of the disagreement between them. Although I consider that the actual decision is correct, in that Parliament through legislation, not the Executive through use of the prerogative, is what the UK constitution requires in order to give Notice under Article 50(2), the reasons behind both the majority and the dissent can be criticised. It is the intention of this post to explain how.
Continue to read to full blog post here.
This blog post was written by Maria Kendrick, Kings College London.