Should The Uk Parliament Have Enough Control Over Its Borders?

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.’

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

With diminishing control of what happens in Britain, the British people decided it was best to vacate the union. The British were dealing with the laws given by the European members who were not living and experiencing the country themselves. To provide an example of a ghastly law given to the British people, they, as part of the European Union, were only allowed to catch 20% of the fish swimming in British territorial waters. What this meant was that tens of thousands of jobs were lost and they were not able to use one of the most significant resources given to them, as Britain is surrounded by ocean. Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Independence Party, says that his fellow Englishmen, “effectively gave away the ability to look after one of our greatest resources to a bureaucracy based in Brussels.” Because of the way the government was set up, “Not only could the voters not change anything, but the institutes themselves are incapable of reform.” With an already maimed government, the European Union was creating more problems than it was solving. The British people had enough of giving up their rights as British citizens so the European Commission could tell them how to live. Therefore, with problems like those arising from the Union and with no hope to resolve them, Britain filed for secession and pulled out of the union

It is important to understand the structure of the parliamentary system within which the machinery of government operates. Parliament is known as a bi-cameral legislature where by decision making autonomy resides with the lower house. The House of Commons and the House of Lords exists as a check upon the powers exerted by respective governments thou right it’s debating and ratification functions. In theory, the bi-cameral legislature in British political system exists to ensure that policy and legislation is created democratically and secondly to protect the country from autocracy or the emergence of dictatorships. Although it could be argued that both of these functions of parliament have been apparent in recent history. In this essay I

Leave campaigners believe that leaving the EU is most beneficial for England. Their conservative and old-fashioned views further reinforce their belief.

This article explains the “on-going” argument of whether or not Britain should remain in the European Union or leave. Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to keep Britain apart, winning the backing of most of most of his Cabinet and the goal of rival parties. Cameron has made it clear Britain is safer and stronger in the EU. However, much of Britain believes in opposition to their membership among the the European Union, leaving this as a constant

“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

Apparently massive political decisions with far reaching socioeconomic repercussions should be made based on results from an indirect vote. Brexit was exactly that kind of decision, a whirlwind of policy and controversy. This summer past Englishmen and Englishwomen upsettingly voted to leave the EU. Both Kenneth Rogoff and Uri Friedman put in their two cents in the form of political articles regarding the outcome of the Brexit vote. Rogoff uses an aggressive narrative, making his opinion quite clear and concise whilst Friedman takes a more general approach, looking at more than one dimension of the Brexit vote. Friedman’s use of interdisciplinary sources and general opinions provide evidence for well supported arguments. The Rogoff article is without a doubt more succinct in writing, but with a set of underlying bias guiding the way, Friedman’s broader approach to writing makes his article an unbiased analysis of the Brexit vote. Rogoff’s aggressive writing style makes his argument very convincing, at the same time the Friedman

As it's political . . . The EU, as well as National Socialism and Communism remain the three major ideological scourges of the 20th century. The UK survived the horrors of the concentration camps and Gulags of the European 20th century, intentionally staying away from the isms arising from Europe and the EU remains no different. The decision whether to remain or leave went a lot deeper than economics or social justice and reflects the drive towards a Eurocommunism, disguised as equality and foisted onto populations by elite politicians using treaties. Moreover, the BREXIT regional and social demographics reflected already indoctrinated Millennials, who mainly voted for socialist dependency, typical of a mass-produced ‘selfie’ generation.

Title: Discuss Bogdanor’s opinion on the effect of the 2016 British Referendum on the sovereignty of Parliament and its position of significance in history

At the end of June, Great Britain made the decision to leave the European Union. A referendum was held where more than 70 percent of the UK voted(more than 30 million people). It resulted in a 52 to 48 percent win for those in favor of leaving. When dividing the United Kingdom into its sovereign states the division can be seen clearly: England and Wales voted strongly for Brexit, while Northern Ireland and Scotland backed up staying in the EU. Following the decision to leave the European Union, Prime Minister David Cameron resigned his position and British politics went went into chaos. Although the economy was expected to drop it was able to withstand the effect of the decision. However, the pound has dropped to its lowest point in three decades, 1.28. As well as affecting the pound, Brexit has affected Great Britain socially in regards to immigration. In this new environment, some immigrants have reported that they have stopped speaking their native tongue in public. Mothers are worried about their children being bullied at school. Younger immigrants say they fear discrimination over jobs and educational opportunities. The negative effects of Brexit have already began to show as nativist sentiment increases and the pound continues to lose value. It is safe to say that this referendum will be marked in history as it continues to change Britain in the future.

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.