I understand that issue, but there is another one. Let us assume for the moment that there is no transition or relationship with the EU at all. Is the Court supposed to apply EU law as currently applied—purposively—or is it supposed to ignore the underlying purpose by which it has constantly been applied heretofore, and in that case, which rules is it supposed to apply? The judiciary have expressed a real concern about what they are supposed to do, because it is quite unclear what Parliament intends. If we forget about a transition or a future relationship, what are they supposed to do? They have rules for interpreting this law at the moment. Are they supposed to stick to those rules when they no longer have an underlying purpose?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 November 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
631 c288 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-14 15:10:37 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-14/17111497000122
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-14/17111497000122
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-14/17111497000122