Parliamentary Sovereignty Is No Longer, If It Ever Was Absolute

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

“Some lawyers have been attracted to the argument that the union legislation placed constraints on the power of the UK Parliament to legislate, and that the UK Parliament might be unable to alter at least its most important terms. While there are powerful arguments against this view, - it continues to have its supporters. It famously received some judicial support from Lord Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate, and has been referred to in several subsequent cases. However, there has been no case in which a Scottish court has questioned the validity of an Act of Parliament on these grounds. Indeed, whether an Act of the UK Parliament is compatible with the union legislation was treated as, in principle, a non-justiciable issue in MacCormick. However, supporters of the argument have taken comfort from the fact that in MacCormick, Gibson and Pringle Scottish judges reserved their opinion on what would be the case if legislation purported to amend 'fundamental provisions', for example, by abolishing the Church of Scotland or the Court of Session, or by replacing the Scottish system of private law with English

Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are both concepts that are key to shaping the British constitution, however there is ambiguity as to which concept is the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangement in the recent years.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

‘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 reform introudced after 1997 was devolution. The centrepiece of Labour’s programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly this. Referendums had been held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.

To completely disregard the opinion of the Scottish Parliament could be thought of as being “unconstitutional”, mainly because this would represent a lack of respect for devolved autonomy, a principle which is firmly rooted in the Sewel Convention. Overall, as the requirement for consent from Holyrood is no more than a convention, the absence of agreement would not amount to a legal obstacle to the creation of ‘The Great Repeal Bill’. Although it would amount to a total disregard for democracy as well as undermining the function of a well-established devolved

Lord Hope has argued that, ‘Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute …' Hence it can be said that, considering the ‘rule of law' as the ultimate factor, it is this, and not Parliamentary sovereignty, that is accountable for the respective powers of the Parliament and the courts. Baroness Hale agreed that, ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law.' Also, Lord Steyn candidly stated, ‘supremacy of Parliament is still the

There are a lot of features in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pham) that could be considered as constitutionally significant, however, for the purpose of an acute analysis of the case, this essay will focus its discussion on the areas of judicial review and on the competences of the European Union in the United Kingdom. This essay will argue that Pham is a constitutionally significant case as it played an important role towards an addition of a ground of judicial review. This essay will also argue that this progression had been long overdue and is evident from previous judgments from previous cases. There will also be discussions about the possible reasons for this delayed development. However, this essay will disagree with the long-winded route that the courts took to reach to this conclusion, which the progression is seen in the judgment of Pham. Regarding the competences of the EU in the UK, this essay will argue that EU has no competence to decide on the British nationality and will also briefly discuss the possible impacts Brexit could have on the British constitution basing on the facts of Pham.

In the UK Parliament the governing party’s authority is frequently challenged by opposing parties. Often within a political party there will be challenges to the authority of the leadership – ‘votes of no