Professor of Law, University of Glasgow. Latest book: On The Law of Speaking Freely (Hart, 2025). Now writing about Enlightenment, democracy, and decline.
Adam Tomkins
Loading...
If Parliament cannot legislate contrary to basic rights other than with the clearest words, perhaps the opposite also holds. For new rights and remedies to be created we need the clearest language, not implication piled upon implication.
Just a wee warning: the UKSC does not in fact rule that Art 2 of the Windsor Framework can have no direct effect. It rules that it does not have the particular direct effects contended for by the applicants in this case.
Lots to absorb from today’s UKSC jmt in Dillon, but on a first reading para 145 strikes me as particularly potent. For the law to have had anything like the effects for which certain parties (and commentators on here!) have contended would require much clearer language than was actually enacted.
