The Consequences Of Factortame And The Issue Of The EU Law

“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

Referring back to the membership of the EU, certain factors of membership indicate that the UK has lost a lot of its sovereignty. For example, in the UK apart from the House of Lords recently known as the Supreme Court the High Court is the highest court in the English Legal System. Due to the membership of the EU, the ECJ formally known as the European Court Of Justice remains at the top of the hierarchy. Any national laws that conflict with EU regulations are dealt in the ECJ where they can overrule a decision of any supreme UK courts. We witness this in the case of Re Tachographs where EU regulations to have tachographs fitted in certain vehicles were not enforced. Parliament had to implement the law and companies were forced to install tachographs into vehicles. Another example that confirmed the supremacy of European Union Law over national low over areas where the EU has competence is the case of Factortame. Spanish fishing merchants appealed against restrictions imposed by on them by the UK government - Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the House of Lords consequently were obliged to rule in favour of Factortame meaning that in effect it struck down the Act, this indicates that sovereignty has been eroded. In contrast to this, sovereignty is gained

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.

However the UK being part of the EU could be argued to increase the UK’s global influence and power as it is a international organisation which brings together many powerful sources of power from the world in effect creates a new source of ‘pooled’ sovereignty, this could be argued to have in fact very positive results for all members of the EU. Furthermore, if parliament does feel as if its sovereignty is being challenged and a government comes into power which disagrees with this, parliament still fundamentally has the right and power to withdraw from the EU at whatever time it wishes. Heywood argues that Parliament simply tolerates EU law and so still retains its own sovereignty efficiently. Finally the UK even has the right to veto certain legislation the which the UK does not want put into place within the UK, allowing another way for the UK to resist changes the EU may be trying to place in Britain.

‘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

It is also important to consider the effect that the principle of subsidiarity can have on the central European Parliament, as it is required to only carry out “those tasks which cannot be performed effectivity at a more immediate or local level” . This importance of decisions being taken as closely as possible to the citizen, can be monitored through constant checks being made to verify that the higher EU level is legitimately required. After members of the European Parliament were granted the power to approve or reject legislation in 1979 , it was then established in Article 5 of the Treaty of Lisbon that member states must also be given the ability to repeal an adoptive legislative act. This is particularly regarding one of shared areas, to certify “the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the union and to improve the coherence of its action” . There is also much concern that unless EU voters can “become more credible and legitimate in the eyes of the voter” , particular areas of the Union may begin to tangle.

xiii) Influence of EU ensures that altering UK constitution is hard – cannot be incompatible

The outcome of the Brexit referendum in June last year came as a surprise to a lot of people, though surveys showed that the outcome would be close. It was predicted that ‘Remain' would win with a tight majority, yet, politicians underestimated the resentment British citizens had cultivated against the perceived domination of the European Union. Citizens voted to win back sovereignty, but as the recent negotiations show the United Kingdom has won anything but that. This essay analyses how the EU dominates Britain in the divorce negotiations by employing John Scott's theory of structures of domination. Access to the single market is the main incentive the EU offers Britain for accepting their conditions of the Brexit. This characterises the EU as the

“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

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

The biggest challenge for parliamentary sovereignty clearly comes from the implications of the 1972 EC Act. Section 2 of the EC Act obliges the UK courts to give effect to Union law. That does not mean that the British courts have the power to strike down legislation but they have the power to set aside British law in a particular case and apply Union law instead. Tensions arose in the past in a number of cases in which Westminster legislated against Union law. Good examples of it are the Factortame cases in which Parliament finally had to accept the supremacy of EU (then EC) law. However, the question of whether the traditional rule that no parliament can bind its successors is still valid was not expressly answered

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.

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. The mix of intergovernmental and supranational institutions makes the EU a unique, distinctive political, and economic system. As Europe has spiraled from one crisis to the next, difficult discussions haves arisen about how much more power should be delegated to Brussels. Even though the EU advocates for “ever closer union”, through increased integration, states are becoming hesitant to relinquish power to the EU. This is due to the fact that state sovereignty has become threatened; it is being compromised by a combination of the lack of effective democratic institutions and the loss of states have lost control of law-making to legislation power to EU institutions. Euroenthuthiasts argue that state sovereignty is enhanced, not threatened, by reallocating power to EU institutions. However, Eurosceptics dispute that too much control has seceded to the EU making is a threat to state sovereignty. My position aligns with Eurosceptics, for the EU has weakened state sovereignty do to increased centralization of power in EU institutions that lack legitimacy. The European Project has obtained a copious amount of jurisdiction from states and eroded a basic fundamental freedom of the modern state- sovereignty. Since the EU has with goals to deepen and widen integration it’s clear that forfeiting state sovereignty will only intensify. My essay will start with a brief history of the European Union and a short