Mark Elliott
@ProfMarkElliott
Followers
35K
Following
3K
Media
761
Statuses
8K
Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge. Fellow, St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Author of https://t.co/aswwmsSgnC
Cambridge, UK
Joined July 2012
"In Defence of Classical Administrative Law", by @philipmurraylaw and me, has now been published in the Cambridge Law Journal on FirstView. It is available via the following link (open access): https://t.co/xPapMmN49o
0
20
51
A reminder, following the conviction of Jimmy Lai, that two senior British lawyers—a former Law Lord and a former Supreme Court President—continue to lend respectability to the Hong Kong legal system by sitting as non-permanent judges on its highest court. https://t.co/eJlt6feuMg
theguardian.com
Rights groups dismiss ‘sham conviction’ of media tycoon on national security offences in city’s most closely watched rulings in decades
3
23
44
New post: Correcting the record on the ‘primacy’ of the House of Commons
publiclawforeveryone.com
In an open letter written in the context of the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill through Parliament, three former Cabinet Secretaries assert that respect for the ‘primacy’ of t…
4
47
105
I'm grateful to the Sunday Times for publishing my letter on the constitutional role of the House of Lords, correcting the misleading impression created by an open letter signed by several former Cabinet Secretaries. https://t.co/sVAXDYhEeu
19
211
578
Catch a glimpse of Godzilla Survival, how to unlock Godzilla for FREE, and how to emotionally recover after losing your rings to Shockirus during the Godzilla Meets Sonic Rumble Crossover Event 🩹 Sonic Rumble’s Community Lead, Lukas, is back, and this time he’s explaining how
7
108
872
Apply by 7 Jan to join our Malaysian & Malay World Studies community: - Tunku Scholarship for Malaysian PhD/MPhil students https://t.co/OklmnUnFKG - Philip Bowring Scholarship for any postgrads studying Malay World history/geography/culture https://t.co/s30PtbrtFB
@liana_chua 1/2
1
1
1
Agreed @ProfMarkElliott. Some people are confusing the specific limitations on Lords authority created by the Parliament Act and by a number of conventions with a general supremacy principle. To quote Noel Coward in Blithe Spirit: “they are quite, quite wrong”.
No. The specific limits on the House of Lords would be redundant if there was a general requirement that it must always yield to the Commons. The Lords is under no duty to approve a non-manifesto Private Members Bill. See:
2
17
82
It's sobering that some MPs have such a flawed understanding of how the Parliament in which they sit actually works. There is no constitutional principle of the 'primacy' of the Commons in the sense that @kitmalthouse asserts. Repeatedly asserting otherwise does not make it so.
You’re asking primacy to be absolute in order to exist, but constitutional principles are hierarchical not binary. They require only that, at the point of ultimate conflict, the mandate of the Commons takes precedence. Statutory and conventional limits simply give effect to that.
13
99
503
Lord Sales devoted a recent lecture on the principle of legality to responding to my critique of one of his judgments. Here, I argue that our disagreement ultimately turns on sharply contrasting, and increasingly consequential, visions of the constitution https://t.co/BIWMa9X8cQ
publiclawforeveryone.com
The incoming Deputy President of the Supreme Court devoted a recent lecture to a critique of my commentary on his judgment in the Spitalfields case, highlighting differences between us concerning t…
3
12
50
No. The specific limits on the House of Lords would be redundant if there was a general requirement that it must always yield to the Commons. The Lords is under no duty to approve a non-manifesto Private Members Bill. See:
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Assisted Dying Bill has been approved by the House of Commons. But unless the Parliament Act is invokved, it also needs the approval of the House of Lords if it is to become law. What constitut…
A neat rhetorical move, but constitutionally upside down. The Lords’ limits exist because the primacy of the elected House must be insulated from an unelected chamber, not because that primacy is in doubt. The settlement works to prevent precisely the scenario you imply.
10
120
436
Lord Sales devoted a recent lecture on the principle of legality to responding to my critique of one of his judgments. Here, I argue that our disagreement ultimately turns on sharply contrasting, and increasingly consequential, visions of the constitution https://t.co/BIWMa9X8cQ
publiclawforeveryone.com
The incoming Deputy President of the Supreme Court devoted a recent lecture to a critique of my commentary on his judgment in the Spitalfields case, highlighting differences between us concerning t…
3
12
50
Let's take a look at the record of the signatories to this letter:
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
11
109
241
Nitric Oxide keeps your heart young. But your body stops producing Nitric Oxide as you age…By 40, your NO levels drops 50%. If you don’t replace what you stopped producing… Your heart, brain, and cells rely on NO to stay alive. I boost Nitric Oxide daily with this👇
0
0
6
* Post 4 should say the existence of those *limits* (on the Lords' powers) proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter.
2
5
37
The correct legal and constitutional position is set out here:
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Assisted Dying Bill has been approved by the House of Commons. But unless the Parliament Act is invokved, it also needs the approval of the House of Lords if it is to become law. What constitut…
2
18
72
But there is no general principle that the Lords must always give way to the Commons. If there was, the more modest legal and conventional limits on the Lords' powers would be redundant. The existence of those powers proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter. /4
3
9
62
The primacy of the Commons is constitutionally acknowledged in certain limited ways, including via the Salisbury convention (Lords should not block manifesto bills) and law (Parliament Acts enable Commons to legislate unilaterally subject to Lords' one-year delaying power). /3
1
4
45
The letter asserts that: 'Respect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacy.' However, this statement is so partial as to be misleading and incorrect. /2
1
4
47
This letter from former Cabinet Secretaries and others is straightforwardly wrong regarding the constitutional role of the House of Lords relative to the role of the Commons. /1
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
8
97
288
But there is no general constitutional prohibition on the Lords disagreeing with, or blocking bills approved by, the Commons. Indeed, if there was, the more modest limitations on the Lords' powers in convention and law would be redundant. /ends
0
2
15
The primacy of the Commons is recognised in certain limited ways, including via the Salisbury Convention (Lords should not block manifesto bills) and the Parliament Acts (Commons can legislate unilaterally after a year's delay).
1
1
12
According to the Sunday Times report, the view of former Cabinet Secretaries is that: 'Respect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacy.' However, this is so partial as to be wrong.
1
1
12