Looking at the Withdrawal Bill Clause 7-9 of the EU, several questions have been posed

regarding the impact of legislatives that would be made to balance the parliament and he
government powers. Clause 7(1) subscribes that Crown Minister have the power to use the
legislation to render requirements in the position of a minister what he/she seems of deems
necessary. As to the Law of EU, the functionality is effectively addressed will all deficiencies
which may occur in case of a disrupting legislation such as a Brexit. For example, affirmative
method may be used in Annex 7(1)(2). This is allowing the Parliament House to legislate a law
before it is implemented. In schedule 7(1)(3), specifications allude that any legislation which is
made not according to the Schedule 7(1)(2) is subjected to a procedure that is negative. If a
legislation is passed negatively in such a way that is made without considering discussion chances, an
objection is usually open from either house within 40 days. As stated above, the supreme court of
UK ruled by a majority that Brexit in case R (Miller) V. Secretary of the state for Exiting the
European Union that claimant experienced adverse consequences of exit from EU and it
affected her political, legal and constitutional relevancy.
Also, the review of Supreme court in Katherine Apps (KA) barrister as Littleton Chamber, a
unanimous decision by the justices was made that that the government amended UK law directly
affecting domestic law to exist from EU which directly impacted the interests of the citizens of
Britain. The Supreme court is still holding that the government cannot solely confirm UK exit to
the EU treaties without a legislative authority since it was confirmed that the consequences
impacted basic human right of the British citizens. Non British citizens raised some concerns
before the referendum even though they had no say regarding the EU referendum. This was an
indicator that the referendum alone was not enough to change individual’s interests.