Mark Elliott @ProfMarkElliott Twitter profile

Pinned Tweet

Mark Elliott

6 months

Here is a short video that I made, for the @cambridgelaw Law in Focus series, on the Rwanda Bill. Thank you to my colleague Daniel Bates for all his technical help with producing this.

What are the legal and constitutional implications of the Rwanda Bill?

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill seeks to circumvent the UK Supreme Court's recent judgment holding the Government's Rwanda policy, concern...

www.youtube.com

3

56

98

Last Seen Profiles

@FifeFlyers

@Heidelblog01

@Leoncarling

@arunsau_

@CowboyxBeta

@Ad_Impact

@pfvrkat

@markfozz81

@__Budino__

@hexyck

@RBlackwellDMHS

@sholden5

@Jonathan_Eaton1

@Shelookchyneese

@JBehrendorff

@Allen_Edwards

@hetarenger1973

@yuchanbonyari

@mindful4peace2

@redsun6699

@tobiassauer99

@jikannohoshi

@GTarnished

@fhsbowling

@blairwaldorfyan

@senoritagoddes

@The_LordX

@kimembock

@miss_omnomnom

@huilvrs

@mrsb20b

@queenfinite5024

@SigridOlthof

@j_bubbie

@shu_seizetheday

@nathelore

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Partygate-related resignations by officials: 1. Allegra Stratton, Govt spokesperson 2. John Penrose, Govt 'anti-corruption tsar' 3. Lord Geidt, Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards Resignations so far by politicians under doctrine of ministerial responsibility: None

57

1K

5K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

Attorney General @SuellaBraverman still hasn’t resigned, but she has broken her recent silence on the Internal Market Bill by publishing a statement of HM Government’s ‘legal position’ on it. It runs to one side of A4. And it is utterly risible. /1

244

3K

5K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Here's my interview with @mrjamesob about the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

LBC

@LBC

2 years

'This is one of the most remarkable interviews I've ever conducted!' James O'Brien is blown away as Professor Mark Elliott explains why the Government lacks legal authority to dump the Northern Ireland protocol. @mrjamesob | @ProfMarkElliott

152

3K

6K

91

2K

4K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

I find this concerning, since it undermines the constitutional principle that the Government must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons: a principle that requires the Opposition, when appropriate, to be able to test that confidence via a vote. /1

Pippa Crerar

@PippaCrerar

2 years

BREAKING: Boris Johnson has blocked Labour's bid to hold vote of no confidence in Govt tomorrow Senior Labour source: "It's just another example of them ripping up the rules to protect their own side. They're saying he's going anyway but they're clearly frightened of losing".

1K

5K

17K

75

1K

3K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Implication that Police should think more carefully before issuing someone with a fixed penality because they're the PM is abhorrent to the rule of law. 'Every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm' (Dicey)

84

1K

3K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The UK may have left the EU, but it has not left the community of nations or the rules-based international order. Treaty obligations are binding upon the UK, and to suggest that they are not ‘because Parliament is sovereign’ is as embarrassing as it is dangerous. /ends

74

921

3K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

I see Attorney-General @SuellaBraverman & Lord Chancellor @RobertBuckland still haven't resigned from a Government intent on undermining the rule of law. I was going to say that's quite extraordinary — but it's now just par for the course. Not a political point. Just a fact.

44

924

3K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Extraordinary. A Cabinet Minister—in conversation with the PM's sister—boasting about her ignorance of the system for upholding the Ministerial Code, trivialising Lord Geidt's resignation & implying that standards in public life are an elite concern.

Nadine Dorries' LBC exclusive phone-in | Watch again

In an exclusive phone-in, Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries takes the calls of LBC listeners.Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Nadine D...

www.youtube.com

114

852

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

I'm pleased to be a signatory to this letter to the Times. We argue that the recent decision to prorogue Parliament sets a dangerous precedent and is incompatible with the core UK constitutional principle of executive accountability to Parliament.

42

917

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

There are 3 fundamental problems with this. First, it implies being bound by treaty obligations is incompatible with sovereignty, whereas entering into such obligations is actually an exercise of sovereignty. Sovereignty is a resource to be used, not a relic to be venerated. /1

Suella Braverman MP

@SuellaBraverman

2 years

We must restore full UK sovereignty and safeguard the Belfast Agreement. That means dealing with the Northern Ireland Protocol #Suella4leader

1K

578

3K

59

693

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

What is ‘elite’ about pointing out that @SuellaBraverman is advocating two entirely inconsistent policies, and that each of them would involve breaches of international law? If ‘making sense’ and ‘obeying the law’ are now elitist, we really are in deep trouble.

Michael.

@maw6578

2 years

The elite are going feral. Keep up the good work @SuellaBraverman

97

0

14

43

380

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

I find this opinion on the Johnson Privileges Committee matter very odd. Much of it is concerned with the fact that the Committee's process may not adhere to legal standards that are wholly inapplicable to a political, parliamentary process. /1

95

790

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Does the PM’s refusal to resign mean the UK is in a ‘constitutional crisis’? That’s a vague notion, but I think the answer is that it implies he’s willing to create one very soon. Another way of framing the question is: At what point *must* Boris Johnson resign? /1

62

591

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Keir Starmer has just told BBC News that if Boris Johnson attempts to stay on pending the leadership election, the Opposition will hold a parliamentary vote of no confidence. That is the proper constitutional mechanism for immediate removal of Johnson as PM, as explained here.

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

If the leadership election takes several months, such that Johnson would remain PM until October, and if that is considered unacceptable, it would be open for a vote of no confidence to be held in the House of Commons. /1

13

191

617

35

590

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

No. It’s not any sort of climb down — the net result would be the same: using these powers would place the UK in breach of its treaty obligations. Any MP who claims this is a legal game-changer is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Paul Brand

@PaulBrandITV

4 years

BREAKING: Major climb down by Downing Street as it agrees to give MPs the final say on whether or not to break international law. Amendment will be tabled to the Internal Market Bill giving MPs a vote on the matter if and when it comes to it.

321

201

475

49

678

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

By my reckoning, the Government has so far attempted in five ways to justify clauses 42 and 43 of the Internal Market Bill, which, if enacted, would allow Ministers to make regulations in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement /…

34

863

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

I assumed this was a spoof account, but apparently not. I’m happy to confirm I’ve made no claim about the moon being made of cheese.* If you’d like to clarify what you said about the judgment, do feel free. * words I never expected to type, but these are unusual times

Geoffrey Cox KC MP

@Geoffrey_Cox

5 years

If Professor Mark Elliott - and I emphasise the word “if”- had said the moon was made of cheese - then he would have fundamentally failed to understand the geological structure of the moon- and cheese.

519

430

2K

46

345

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

6 years

In which case you know very little about how the UK constitution works. But leaving that aside, presumably this means you want a second referendum, so 'the people' can make an informed decision about whether to leave the EU once they actually know what that would entail?

Julia Hartley-Brewer

@JuliaHB1

6 years

As a Brexiteer, I didn't vote to bring back power from the EU to the British Parliament. I voted to bring back power to the British people. MPs don't get the final say. We, the people, do.

3K

2K

5K

60

651

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

First they came for the European Union. Then they came for the European Convention on Human Rights. This was always a question on when, not if. The logical endpoint of this initiative is withdrawal from the ECHR.

102

826

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The degree of cognitive dissonance exhibited here is quite overwhelming. It's very hard to understand what moral authority the UK Government thinks it has to lecture China about breaking treaty obligations whilst simultaneously planning to do so in relation to the NI Protocol.

Liz Truss

@trussliz

2 years

Today is 25 years since the handover of Hong Kong to China. Beijing has abandoned its legally binding commitment to uphold Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. The UK will continue to hold China to account for its actions. Read my statement 👇

2K

557

1K

45

480

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Let me get this clear. The Good Friday Agreement is so important that (setting aside your nonsense about the necessity doctrine) you advocate breaching the NI Protocol, while simultaneously advocating withdrawal from the ECHR, which the GFA says must be protected in NI law?

Suella Braverman MP

@SuellaBraverman

2 years

We must fully take back control of our borders. That means leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR. #Suella4Leader

11K

2K

7K

29

471

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

Utterly extraordinary. Northern Ireland’s position in the UK is unique only because the rest of it has left the Single Market. Does @BrandonLewis fail to realise he’s extolling the virtues of EU membership or simply assume his intended audience is too gullible to grasp this?

Brandon Lewis

@BrandonLewis

3 years

The unique position that Northern Ireland business now have, as an integral part of UK market & able to trade with EU, opens huge opportunity for inward investment, business & job growth. Globally unique opportunity.

2K

161

438

54

474

2K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The Guardian is reporting that it has seen a letter revealing a rift between Attorney General @SuellaBraverman and Advocate General Lord Keen on the Internal Market Bill. /1

Government's top legal advisers divided over move to override Brexit deal

Scottish advocate general warned of breach of ministerial code but two other advisers disagreed, letter shows

www.theguardian.com

54

940

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

Another Sunday, another Sunday Telegraph story demonstrating the fragile state of respect for the rule of law on the part of the UK Government. The Justice Secretary's apparent plans raise three key constitutional concerns. (1)

41

810

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Pleased to have a letter with Lord Anderson ( @bricksilk ) and Lord Pannick in today's Times on the unlawfulness of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

25

639

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

What goes around comes around. The UK doesn’t get to lecture other countries for breaching their treaty obligations under international law when it’s unwilling to honour its own commitments.

Chinese Embassy in Ireland

@ChinaEmbIreland

2 years

"2 years ago we made a promise to the Northern Ireland Protocol. We are determined to break it."

720

4K

16K

19

412

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The position is therefore perfectly clear: the Ministerial Code imposes an overarching duty on UK Government Ministers to comply with the law — including international law. /ends

47

445

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

In an interview in today's Telegraph, the Justice Secretary proposes to enable ministers to 'correct' court judgments that they consider 'incorrect'. This raises profound constitutional concerns, as I explain in this short video.

Undermining the rule of law? A comment on the Justice Secretary's...

On 17 October 2021, the UK Government's Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, told the Sunday Telegraph that the Government was considering making changes to the ...

www.youtube.com

82

624

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

The Bill unequivocally does *not* allow EU to dictate length of Art 50 extension. Clause 3(3) says that extension to date other than 31 Jan could take effect *only* with House of Commons' approval. The many commentators suggesting otherwise are straightforwardly wrong.

(((Dan Hodges)))

@DPJHodges

5 years

We’ve seen some crazy stuff from Remainers over the past few days. But they can’t seriously be proposing a bill that will allow the EU to unilaterally impose and dictate the length of a further Brexit extension.

957

871

2K

62

465

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

This is at best misleading. The EC Act 1972 will only be repealed on 'exit day'. If Parliament forces the Government to seek, and the EU grants, an Article 50 extension, the definition of 'exit day' can be altered & ECA repeal deferred accordingly. So repeal isn't 'set in stone'.

Steve Barclay

@SteveBarclay

5 years

I have signed the legislation setting in stone the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. This is a landmark moment in taking back control of our law. It underlines that we are leaving the EU on October 31.

3K

11K

54

454

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

If the Privileges Committee inquiry ends up being cancelled on the basis of the Legal Opinion published today, it will be a constitutional outrage — for reasons I’ve explained here:

Legal opinion on the Privileges Committee’s ‘Partygate’ inquiry: Some comments

As is well known, the Committee of Privileges is currently holding an inquiry into whether the Prime Minister committed a contempt of Parliament when addressing the House of Commons in relation to …

publiclawforeveryone.com

Mail+

@DailyMailUK

2 years

Saturday’s @DailyMailUK #MailFrontPages

94

26

72

62

416

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

I expect to be on @BBCr4today at 7.10 am commenting on this suggestion that the Government may attempt to use an Order of Council to suspend the Benn-Burt Act that requires the PM to seek an Article 50 extension. /1

Tom Newton Dunn

@tnewtondunn

5 years

Sir John Major has found a way around the Benn Act (an Order of Council from Privy Councillors) which he suspects Boris Johnson will use use to leave the EU on October 31 without a deal. His speech tonight:

589

1K

2K

88

658

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The contention appears to be that because the UK’s internal constitutional arrangements allow Parliament, as a matter of *domestic* law, validly to enact any *domestic* law, this somehow makes it acceptable for the UK to breach *international* law. That is a non sequitur. /4

9

250

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The Bill of Rights Bill has just been published. I'll tweet some thoughts as I read through it... /1

49

630

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Wow. The Attorney-General is on @Peston now. She says it’s untenable for Boris Johnson to continue as Prime Minister and that he has handled matters ‘appallingly’ in recent days. I didn’t see that coming.

49

184

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Finally, and more broadly, it seems extremely unwise to me to go down the route of seeking to impose legal standards on parliamentary, political processes. Paradoxically, Johnson's government itself has railed against lawyers' 'interference' in political matters. 7/7

35

188

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 months

Michael Foran is an outstanding public lawyer with impeccable academic credentials. Suggestions to the contrary are utter nonsense.

Michael Foran

@michaelpforan

5 months

Since this keeps coming up, I have a first class LLB from Trinity College Dublin (not in the U.K.), which won the Julian Prize; an MSc in Law and Anthropology from the LSE; and a PhD in constitutional and equality law from Cambridge which won the Yorke Prize.

175

332

3K

21

140

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The AG also places weight on but misunderstands the implications of the ‘dualist’ nature of the UK legal system. She claims that it means that ‘treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation’. That is flatly incorrect. /5

12

267

990

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

So: @SuellaBraverman ’s plan regarding the NI Protocol misunderstands both the notion of sovereignty and the relationship between domestic and international law, while advocating protection of the Good Friday Agreement that she actually proposes to breach via ECHR withdrawal. 4/4

33

202

1K

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

This is a real zinger of a letter - and entirely warranted.

Roddy Dunlop KC

@RoddyQC

3 years

Response to the not-very-contrite Home Office letter.

93

735

3K

19

207

993

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Extraordinary and sad contribution to NI Protocol Bill 2nd reading debate by former Lord Chancellor @RobertBuckland . The international law doctrine of necessity requires precisely what he says it doesn’t. We are now in Through the Looking Glass territory.

56

351

988

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The process adopted by the Committee is a parliamentary, not legal, matter. The fact that the Committee's approach may not comply with standards that are inapplicable to it is neither here nor there: like criticising rugby players for not playing by the rules of football. /6

7

229

960

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

A Conservative MP—James Duddridge, one of Boris Johnson’s PPSs—has just been on Sky News claiming that Johnson has sent him out to say that he has ‘listened’ today and, having done so, plans to continue as Prime Minister. I wonder what Johnson heard when he ‘listened’? /1

39

202

953

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

Brexit Secretary says Govt "may look to appeal in the Scottish courts" against ECJ judgment on revocability of Article 50. Degree of ignorance this reveals about how EU law works — it's impossible to appeal to national court against ECJ interpretation of EU law — is astonishing

Luciana Berger

@lucianaberger

5 years

I just asked Brexit Secretary @SteveBarclay to confirm the Government wouldn’t go to the Scottish courts to overturn the ruling. He wouldn’t. He also wouldn’t - for a 3rd time - answer the question about how much this case has cost them. Appalling state of affairs. >>>

27

66

155

69

504

952

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

My takeaway is that it’s important for academics and other experts to be willing to ‘speak truth to power’ and, in my view at least, to strive for a degree of objectivity that springs from grounding critique in expertise. I’ll continue to try my best to do that. 10/10

71

102

945

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

Contrary to the Government’s position, the UK, like every other State, is required in international law to abide by its treaty obligations. Neither parliamentary sovereignty nor the notion of dualism is any answer to that point. /8

6

224

899

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

Here, the Attorney-General — wrongly — claims not only that the Brexit deal ‘restores full sovereignty’ but also establishes a ‘new sovereignty’, an intriguing concept upon which, sadly, she fails to elaborate. (1/2)

Attorney General

@attorneygeneral

3 years

The UK’s Free Trade Agreement with the European Union fulfills the wish of the British people to live under their own laws. Here’s what the Attorney General has to say

567

21

47

50

233

904

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

In a dualist system, matters set out in treaties are *enforceable in* domestic law only to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation — but treaty obligations are nevertheless *binding* on the State in *international law*. /6

9

188

870

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The Government’s statement is risible because it utterly misses the central point of concern. That concern is that the Internal Market Bill authorises Ministers to repudiate specific, critical and recently agreed legal obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement & NI Protocol. /2

10

232

860

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

A disturbing interview. Conflates (a) judges "interfering in politics" with (b) addressing legal questions that may have political ramifications. In rule of law-based democracy, determining legal parameters within which politicians operate is a paradigm judicial function. 1/3

BBC Politics

@BBCPolitics

5 years

“The more the courts get involved in politics that is of detriment not only to politics but also the courts” Business Minister Kwasi Kwarteng says judges involved with decisions on #Brexit are not biased, but says they are “interfering” #AndrewNeilShow

2K

304

770

22

361

845

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

I’m starting some annual leave soon and plan to take a break from Twitter while I’m away. Before I do, a short thread—prompted by recent events and some reactions to things I’ve said—on politics and the role, as I see it, of legal academics. /1

47

189

841

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Third, yesterday @SuellaBraverman advocated leaving the ECHR. But the Good Friday Agreement, which she now says she wants to protect, requires the UK to participate in the ECHR. It cannot do so solely in relation to NI, so the GFA requires the whole UK to remain in the ECHR. /3

11

151

829

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The AG freely acknowledges this and concedes that the UK is required, as a matter of international law, to discharge its treat obligations in good faith. She then attempts, but fails, to make an exceptionalist argument based on parliamentary sovereignty & dualism. /3

3

169

766

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

*If* the Attorney General had said this - and I emphasise the word "if" - then he would have fundamentally failed to understand the judgment.

Jack Doyle

@jackwdoyle

5 years

:: Mr Rees-Mogg accused the judges of making errors, saying ‘some elements of the judgment are factually inaccurate’. :: Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said he didn’t believe ‘any prorogation over the past 50-100 years would have survived today’s judgment.’

169

224

526

34

186

776

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

So: five attempts to justify clauses 42–3, none of which is satisfactory as a matter of law. Sixth time lucky? /ends

33

130

767

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Second, it implies the NI Protocol can be ‘improved’ by enacting domestic legislation. It can’t. Domestic law cannot and will not change the terms of an international treaty. The NI Protocol Bill will breach, not amend or ‘improve’, the Protocol. /2

4

132

768

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

A (for me rare) personal tweet. Just run 6 miles in near-personal-best time, 2 years to the day after having major heart surgery. I got through that, & got better, thanks to wonderful family & friends, faith, and superb treatment @RoyalPapworth - for which I’ll always be grateful

30

22

778

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

The Government’s argument is that Parliament’s legal capacity in domestic law to make any law it wants somehow makes it acceptable, as a matter of international law, for the UK to renege on its treaty obligations. But the latter does not follow from the former. /7

4

172

746

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

I am grateful to The Times for publishing a letter from me today. In it, I argue that there are several significant legal flaws in Vernon Bogdanor's recent piece on Parliament's capacity to block a no-deal Brexit.

35

444

714

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Johnson’s insistence he’ll carry on implies he’s willing to create a constitutional crisis. If he refused to resign following a vote of no confidence, the Queen would be entitled to dismiss him. It’s therefore constitutionally idiotic for him not to resign now. 10/10

42

173

746

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

Yes, thank you, I did. Contempt of court also happens when someone who is under a legal obligation to do something (e.g. requesting an Aricle 50 extension from the European Council) is ordered by a court to do it and refuses to comply.

Attorney General

@attorneygeneral

5 years

#DidYouKnow that ‘contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case, and it may stop somebody from getting a fair trial or affect a trial’s outcome. Read more here:

11

6

10

9

223

725

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The position in terms of constitutional convention is absolutely clear: according to Erskine May, the most authoritative statement of parliamentary procedure, the Government always accedes to Opposition requests for no-confidence debates. /2

5

286

703

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

...except, of course, this is not really extraordinary at all: it's now entirely normal—part of an increasingly obvious playbook that posits all forms of accountability as threats that need to be neutralised. The 'Executive Power Project', if you will, in action.

10

121

717

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

Having deferred the start date for 18 months due to a period of illness last year, I am thankful to be able to begin today as Chair of the Faculty @cambridgelaw . I very much look forward to working with colleagues, students and alumni in this role.

29

24

721

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

It is very concerning that the Labour Party, according to this report, thinks that it could reverse Brexit after the UK leaves the EU by getting Parliament to legislate retrospectively. This is utterly misconceived as a matter of law. 1/2

Labour drawing up plans to reverse Brexit after Britain leaves the EU

EXCLUSIVE: Senior Labour MP says: 'Just because something is done, it doesn't mean it can't be undone' in move to provide a back-up plan if Jeremy Corbyn fails in bid to lead national unity government

www.mirror.co.uk

78

389

688

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The notion of a ‘personal mandate’ is alien to the UK’s constitutional and electoral systems. It provides no refuge for a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of his Party and of the House of Commons, and ill-founded reliance upon is merely a distraction. 5/5

19

155

691

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

This seems to me to translate as ‘the rule of law is as good thing when it gets me to an outcome that I agree with’. Sorry to disappoint, but that’s not how it works.

Dominic Cummings

@Dominic2306

2 years

Over past few years of Brexit battles 'rule of law' has often been a weasel phrase but Prof Elliott is right this time, tory mps are propping up a guy not just trying to fix illegal donations etc but trying to bully cops into treating him differently

160

459

1K

8

111

682

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

My analysis is neither a Remain nor a Leave analysis. It is a legal analysis. If you want to contest my analysis, feel free to do so. But don't imply that it is driven or distorted by a political agenda. Throughout Brexit, I've tried to offer clear, impartial legal analysis.

Alexblx

@Alexblx

5 years

His is the #remain view of Art 50 Leave & @lawyers4britain view, is that the new UK #EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 prescribes a specific amendment procedure (both Houses of Parliament must authorize and the Queen sign off on any change) which May ignored. Sup Ct must now resolve this!

4

3

5

11

88

687

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

3 years

As an academic who’s rightly I used to having my arguments scrutinised, I find it incomprehensible that people like this have the temerity to weigh in on such critical matters on which they have no expertise whatever. If I’d written this I’d now feel obliged to crawl under a rock

Telegraph Politics

@TelePolitics

4 years

"The much ballyhooed ‘second spike’ has refused to materialise. The virus has all but disappeared," writes @toadmeister

129

81

109

23

104

648

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

New post: The UK’s (new) Bill of Rights

The UK’s (new) Bill of Rights

Proposals for a new Bill of Rights were announced by the UK Government in 2022. However, in 2023, it was announced that those proposals would not be taken forward. I have left this post up in case …

publiclawforeveryone.com

39

385

639

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

Keen is correct; Braverman is wrong. The Ministerial Code says that there is an overarching duty on Ministers to obey the law. /4

16

282

622

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

As I’ve explained in another thread, Johnson has no ‘personal mandate’ as Prime Minister: that’s a concept unknown to the British constitution. Johnson’s invocation of ‘his’ 14 million votes is a constitutional dead cat. /2

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

A Conservative MP—James Duddridge, one of Boris Johnson’s PPSs—has just been on Sky News claiming that Johnson has sent him out to say that he has ‘listened’ today and, having done so, plans to continue as Prime Minister. I wonder what Johnson heard when he ‘listened’? /1

39

202

953

4

121

633

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

However, this understates matters in crucial respects. The fact that the Committee is not subject to judicial review is no mere happenstance: it is a matter of basic, and sound, constitutional principle that proceedings are not subject to judicial oversight. /3

3

98

619

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

If the leadership election takes several months, such that Johnson would remain PM until October, and if that is considered unacceptable, it would be open for a vote of no confidence to be held in the House of Commons. /1

13

191

617

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

What an unpleasant thing to say. But if explaining the law and arguing that the Government must obey it makes one a "traitor" in these extraordinary times, then I am more than happy to be characterised as such.

23

120

601

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

Brexit in a nutshell: Entering into treaties is a way of *exercising* sovereignty. It has *consequences*, including binding States in international law. Just as being bound by the rules of EU membership did not stop the UK from being sovereign, nor does the Withdrawal Agreement.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg

@zatzi

4 years

@andrew_lilico @GeorgePeretzQC @danielmgmoylan And by ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement the EU confirmed the UK was a sovereign nation, whether they now like that or not.

190

7

23

15

165

577

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

New post | Prorogation and justiciability: Some thoughts ahead of the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case in the Supreme Court

47

370

567

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

A few people have asked whether it would be possible to reconcile adherence to the Good Friday Agreement with withdrawal from the ECHR by continuing to provide for the protection of ECHR rights in domestic law in Northern Ireland. I don’t think so. /1

8

216

558

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

What an odd thing to say. The Cherry/Miller (No 2) judgment has nothing whatever to do with the ECHR. Nor did it involve the exercise of the sort of legislative strike-down powers exercised by the US Supreme Court (and many other courts around the world).

Alex Wickham

@alexwickham

5 years

A Tory source said: “What the Supreme Court ruling has done is force a choice between moving towards a full-blown US system and return to the traditional pre-ECHR English system. Lady Hale has cut away the middle ground.”

43

84

183

29

134

554

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

It follows that the Justice Secretary's claim in the House of Commons today that the Bill of Rights *expands* human rights protection is clearly incorrect. It represents a significant step back from the level of protection provided by the Human Rights Act at present. 33/33

13

281

544

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 months

What exquisite timing.

The Royal Family

@RoyalFamily

5 months

The King has visited the Royal Courts of Justice to celebrate the work of the judiciary and its commitment to the rule of law.

356

614

6K

14

113

554

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Repeatedly criticising the current Government, particular Ministers or the PM may understandably give the impression of a ‘political’ stance, but the reality is that it is the exceptional conduct we have witnessed that has provided the occasion for that criticism. /8

5

70

535

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

But the Court of Appeal has made it clear that the removal (by the Cameron government) of an explicit reference to international law did not relieve Ministers of the obligation to abide by it. /6

9

184

527

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Rather, the standards by which the Opinion judges the Committee are standards that do not *in the first place* apply, precisely because the Privileges Committee is a parliamentary body undertaking a decision-making process in a political realm beyond the courts' jurisdiction. /5

2

86

517

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

The principle that the PM must be able to *govern*, including by appointing Ministers to their Government, is so obvious that it is not generally articulated in constitutional texts. But it is surely an implicit constitutional principle. It seems Johnson cannot now govern /6

4

82

529

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

I agree. The motion is one of no confidence in the Government, which is all that should ultimately matter. Any uncertainty should be resolved in light of the cardinal principle that Government must command the confidence of the Commons; the Opposition must be able to test that.

7

186

508

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

11 months

This is a deeply misleading and corrosive narrative. No-one can be removed from Parliament by the Privileges Committee. Boris Johnson chose to resign as an MP. Had he not done so, it would have been for the House of Commons to decide whether to accept the Committee's report. /1

Simon Clarke MP

@SimonClarkeMP

11 months

It is extraordinary how he has been effectively removed from Parliament in this way. Doubly so that some of the Committee voted to reduce Margaret Ferrier’s suspension for a criminal offence to just 9 days. (2/)

224

32

143

3

211

500

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

No it isn’t—for reasons explained here:

Brandon Lewis

@BrandonLewis

2 years

This bill is legal, it is necessary and it is right for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland ➡️

2K

73

265

10

187

493

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

1. The powers would breach international law but only in a ‘limited and specific’ manner (Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland Secretary) — but this is not a distinction the law draws: a breach of international law is a breach of international law /…

4

102

478

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Moreover, framing matters in terms of judicial review not applying might be taken to imply that the Committee is breaching legal standards to which it ought to adhere but need not do so due to a procedural quirk. That is not, however, the case. /4

1

74

473

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 years

New post | Can Parliament prevent a no-deal Brexit?

Can Parliament prevent a no-deal Brexit?

Boris Johnson, the UK’s new Prime Minister, says that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October “do or die”. With negotiations between the UK and the EU apparently at an impasse, the likelihood of a n…

publiclawforeveryone.com

52

368

478

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

If those caveats don’t apply, and the Govt is simply refusing to allow a vote of no confidence in itself at the request of the Opposition, it is driving a coach and horses through a foundational constitutional principle. The fact that it would probably win is beside the point. /4

3

123

466

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Whatever he heard, it was presumably distorted by his misguided notion that he has a ‘personal mandate’ consisting of the 14m votes cast for Conservative candidates at the last election. Our constitutional system accords no such personal mandate to a Prime Minister. /2

9

74

475

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

8 years

With a heavy heart, a new post | Brexit — Legally and constitutionally, what now?

Brexit: Legally and constitutionally, what now?

Roughly half of the country is reeling this morning from the news that the people of United Kingdom have voted — by a narrow but clear majority — to leave the European Union. There is a great deal…

publiclawforeveryone.com

34

665

467

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

4 years

And the Cabinet Office, in 2015, accepted that ‘the law’ includes ‘international law’. /7

9

167

465

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

6 years

Every time I assume that the quality of post-Brexit political debate in the UK must have reached rock bottom, I find myself proved wrong. To 'adequate food supplies', it seems that less well-qualified doctors can now be added in the 'Brexit dividend' column.

Andrea Jenkyns MP 🇬🇧

@andreajenkyns

6 years

Fantastic and great to see Pro-Brexit Health Minister @SteveBarclay defending the benefits of #Brexit . Doctors could qualify more quickly after Brexit to solve staff shortages, minister says

1K

282

633

20

179

456

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

Two stories on the front of this morning's @ObserverUK neatly sum up where we are, constitutionally speaking, in the UK right now. /1

6

198

440

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

…but she isn’t resigning because she takes her constitutional duties so seriously. Call me old-fashioned, but I’d have thought one of those constitutional duties was governed by the convention of collective responsibility, which would seem at odds with calling for PM to resign.

11

45

435

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

5 months

Constitutional lawyers may find suggestions that parliamentary sovereignty is an 'assumption' less surprising, since the suggestion emanates not from four KCs who have just written to a newspaper but from judges themselves. (1)

David Frost

@DavidGHFrost

5 months

We've seen some remarkable things in the last few years, but I must admit I didn't foresee several KCs describing parliamentary sovereignty, the most fundamental doctrine of our constitution, as just an "assumption" and suggesting the courts could take it upon themselves to

560

559

2K

25

169

451

Mark Elliott

@ProfMarkElliott

2 years

I find it interesting that commentary critical of the Government or individual Ministers on the ground of lack of coherence and respect for basic standards, including the rule of law, is perceived as ‘political’ and/or left-wing. I’d call this out whichever party was in power.

Sandy. I Stand with Israel🇮🇱 Am Yisrael Chai

@AddictScrabble

2 years

@ProfMarkElliott @SuellaBraverman What's sad is that the elite and in particular universities always seem to want to run out country down. Can anyone show me a right leaning Professor?

93

21

95

8

62

429