Its verdict fundamentally misunderstands Parliamentary Sovereignty – thus raising big questions about the future of the judiciary and the stability of our constitution.
“Of course we’ll respect whatever the legal ruling from the Supreme Court is…there are different permutations to what the court may or may not decide.”
The fundamental mistake of the Brexiteers domestically is that they have mistaken a moral argument for a political one.
If MPs want to disrupt the constitution and limit prerogative powers, they should say so in terms, not indirectly with a nudge and a wink.
Despite polarisation on Brexit, there is more agreement among voters than often appears – and therefore more cause for optimism.
Governments are more likely to help create conditions for it by seeking economic growth, rather than well-being.
The panel, comprising legally-trained Conservative and DUP MPs as well as outside experts, set out their full legal reasoning for rejecting the deal.
With 45 days left, unless workarounds or extra time can be found, uncomfortable decisions may have to be made on which Brexit Bills to prioritise.
The Labour former Solicitor General argued that the Attorney General should warn the Government that it is engaged in “breaking the rules”.
Social media providers should be required to present UK consumers with an ongoing, highly visible, simple, unavoidable choice over its use.
We set five tests for it. Does this draft agreement pass them? And does it really take back control of our borders, laws and money?
Labour’s debate on the disclosure of legal advice about any Brexit agreement will be well worth keeping an eye on.
Blanket stop and search is not the silver bullet some like to imagine, despite all the hype.
Ministers are wary of giving rebels the chance to introduce troublesome amendments. Some workarounds and bypasses contain their own problems.