And in a week overshadowed by the horrendous fire at Grenfell Tower and the fallout from the General Election …
Access for Northern Ireland women to free abortion in England
On Thursday we posted Frank’s analysis of R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health UKSC 41 in which the Supreme Court considered:
Was the Secretary of State ‘s failure to exercise his power to require abortion services to be provided through the NHS in England to women ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland unlawful as a failure to discharge his duty under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to “take such steps as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements” for services?
Does the continuing failure to provide free abortion services in England to women ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland infringe Articles 14 (discrimination) and 8 (private and family life) ECHR?
The appeal was dismissed by a 3-2 majority, and we suggested that it is quite possible that the case is bound for Strasbourg. Continue reading →
A week dominated by Brexit, ‘First Minister vs Prime Minister’ and the fall-out from the first judgments of the CJEU on religious manifestation…
As expected, on Monday the Commons rejected the Lords amendments to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, the Lords did not insist on their amendments and the bill passed. So after a total of 70 hours of debate, the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on Thursday. The BBC reports that the Prime Minister is expected to wait until the end of the month formally to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to leave.
Opposite-sex civil partnerships, RE, funny handshakes – and some of the media still don’t understand the difference between Brussels and Strasbourg…
Opposite-sex civil partnerships? Not yet
Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan lost their appeal against the Administrative Court’s refusal to review the Government’s policy on the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: see Steinfeld & Anor v Secretary of State for Education EWCA Civ 81: we noted the decision here. Continue reading →
The Diocese of Oxford weekly newsletter of 30 November 2016 included an announcement that the Chancellor of the Diocese had made new Churchyard Regulations governing the installation of new memorials, works to existing memorials, and other matters in churchyards; these will come into force on 1 January 2017. With more churches than any other diocese in the Church of England, and coming shortly after standardized Regulations of the Leeds diocese which came into force at the start of this year, these new Regulations represent a significant development towards Continue reading →
The McArthurs & Ashers Baking lost their appeal, the Northern Ireland High Court rejected a challenge to Brexit, the Vatican issued an instruction on what to do with cremated remains – and Hill Ch was rightly scathing about sloppy faculty applications…
The Great Ulster Bake-off
Much the biggest news of the week was the judgment of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Lee v McArthur & Ors NICA 29. The Court rejected the appeal of Colin and Karen McArthur and Ashers Baking against the ruling in the county court that they had discriminated directly against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to bake him a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage.
The judgment has attracted a variety of comments, most, but not all of it critical – Continue reading →
Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union reads as follows:
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
If a withdrawal agreement can be reached, it must be approved by the European Parliament and then by the Council, by Qualified Majority Voting. Continue reading →