European Community Law Enacted Into Domestic Law

That such a momentous step was taken in Factortame is, on the face of it, grist to the mill of those who contend that sovereignty has been ceded to Brussels. Yet Wade’s analysis — and the dramatic consequences that it implies — is problematic. For one thing, it is incompatible with the way in which Lord Bridge — the only Law Lord in Factortame to consider this point in any detail at all — explained the judgment. He argued that any limitations upon its sovereignty implied by EU membership had been accepted ‘voluntarily’ by Parliament when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972. The implication was that Parliament is at liberty to permit EU law to prevail over its own enactments. The flip side of that coin must be that if Parliament

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

One of the tenets of law has always been the ideal that Parliament is wholly sovereign, being the conclusive controlling factor on which the United Kingdom constitution is based. Yet not all ideals are taken and translated into reality. The statement from Lord Hope in R (Jackson) v AG challenges the sovereignty of Parliament, by demonstrating that there may be limits to Parliamentary sovereignty of which can be seen through the proceedings of the R (Jackson) v AG case, Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, and HS2. Whilst conclusively determining that the rule of law is the ultimate controlling fact on which the United Kingdom’s constitution is based. Although counter-arguments can be taken from this statement and the appropriate cases, of which

This essay will look at the judgments given in the Miller case with regards to Article 50, and the royal prerogative. Prior to Gina Miller’s litigation, the Government wanted to use prerogative powers to leave the EU without Parliament. The Government Ministers claimed that because it was foreign policy, it fell within the Government’s jurisdiction. The decision made in The Supreme Court on 24th January 2017 was that Parliament should be involved in withdrawal decisions. Both the majority judgment and the dissenting judgment will be discussed and evaluated.

The Bancoult N.2 case dealt with 2 main issues; the reviewability of the prerogative legislation where the GCHQ case was presented concluding that the prerogative power was reviewable, and judicial review is applicable. The prerogative order in the council are primary legislation therefore an act of the parliament so there is ‘no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action.’ The second issue is about the legality of the prerogative power where it was decided that it was lawful. Lord Bingham and Mance said that ’’ There should be no distinction made from the colonial territories and the British citizens since due to the rule of law everyone has equal rights’’. This case can be seen as a case law that enters not the complexity of

Parliament Sovereignty is the right to make or unmake any Law, Parliament are the supreme making body. According to A.V Dicey ‘No person or body is recognised by the law of England having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament’1. So nobody has the right to question the validity of the Law, it should lie with Parliament as no one can challenge to change it. This report offers information to assist party concerned of a conclusion to the effect devolution has on the UK.

Parliamentary supremacy is a fundamental aspect in the UK’s unwritten constitution, whereby it can be argued that parliament has no limits to the exercise of power. Pickin v British Railways Board highlights the supremacy of Parliament constitutionally “The idea that a court is entitled to disregard a provision in an Act of Parliament on any ground must seem strange and startling to anyone with any knowledge of the history and law of our constitution” This case shows fundamentally how the Judiciary has no powers to disregard and Act of parliament. The history and law of our constitution portrays the point that parliament is supreme; historically the judiciary’s role has never allowed them to question any parliamentary proceeding as the Bill of Rights set out in 1688. However even in modern day times the prospect of Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as Lord Steyn states in Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General “Supremacy of Parliament is still the general principle of our constitution” Showing how even up to present day, Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as a strong principle within our constitution. Showing how our principles within a political constitution, does not allow judges to overrule an act of Parliament

When critically analysing how recent legislative developments have affected the British Constitution, there are many different aspects to take into consideration. We need to consider the nature of the British Constitution, which has been widely accepted as uncodified, being found in Acts of Parliament, Court Judgements and Conventions. Whilst there is no written document forming the Constitution, there are understood to be governing principles. These include the need for the separation of powers and Parliamentary sovereignty. Three primary legislative developments affecting these principles are: The separation of powers within the United Kingdom, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive, have been made much clearer over the years,

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

Jackson v Attorney General (2005) is an important constitutional law case in the UK. But what made Jackson v. Attorney General particularly significant, is the dicta relating to some constitutional matters mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty.

The lack of a codified and entrenched constitution is quite problematic when considering the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which at its crudest form has the potential to create a ‘flat’ constitution with no hierarchy of laws. Lack of hierarchy is harmful and degrades important principles by downplaying their significance i.e., by placing them in the same pedestal alongside Acts of Parliament having no constitutional significance. UK’s membership in the EU has indeed brought about severe implications on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament but what it has also done is

the United Kingdom unlike most other countries does not have a codified constitution to restrict the powers of the Parliament, the main check on power of the British Parliament is the sovereignty of the future parliaments. The European Union has been growing since its establishment and its growth has been considered a threat to the Parliamentary Sovereignty of the UK, since their joining of the EU in 1973. This essay will showcase the treaties, institutions, cases, and acts that have eroded the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and will conclude that the development of the EU will only further reduce the power of Parliamentary Sovereignty as long as the United Kingdom stays a member of the EU.

It is well established within the UK constitution that parliament has unlimited legislative powers. This power is exercised through the uncodified British constitution, uncodified meaning that it is not written in a single document. The constitution is portrayed as a set of the most important rules and principles with the primary purpose of outlining how the country should be run, which the uk is governed under. These rules are set out in the common law, Acts of parliament and constitutional conventions. Parliament is the supreme source of English law also known as ‘queen in parliament’ and is a bicameral parliament, consisting of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch (the Queen). This essay will be specifically exploring the extent of power that is granted to Parliament by the UK constitution. Fundamentally the legitimacy of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and how parliament does have unlimited legislative power by examining the separation of powers. However, there is a school of thought that parliamentary sovereignty can be undermined by notably the devolution of power thwarting the flexibility and functionality of parliament.

Lord Mustill contends that parliament has left a gap in statutory provisions which judicial review had to fill with case law and elaborate on public bodies’ powers and the way they should go about when making decisions. It is claimed to be apparent that the statutory provisions created by Parliament are not always adequate and even though parliament’s decisions can not be changed because of its sovereignty, judicial review allows the courts to take measures and provide those checks and balances on the gaps that parliament have missed out on through case law This is one of the main

Bear in mind, in the absence of this important EU legislation, this will lead to even more uncertainty regarding who has the jurisdiction to hear the case. It has been iterated that the courts will have to fill the vacuum with something that would be similar to Brussels II in order to address the situation.