In the British constitution the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is placed at the highest pedestal. The legislature has the power to make, amend or repeal laws. No other person or organisation has the power to change the legislation that is implements. Additionally, the parliament can look into any issue unrestrained, within its jurisdiction. When it comes to parliament applying its authority, there are no sacred cows.
In order to regulate fishing by European Union member states, The Common Fisheries Policy was implemented. It introduced a quota system for each of its member states. To go around this problem, some Spanish shipping vessels re-registered as British Vessels. The British government responded to this by enacting Merchant …show more content…
The House of Lords affirmed that article 177 on matters of EC could grant an interim injunction against the Crown. In the suspension of the inconsistent sections of the statute, the House of Lords confirmed the superiority of the EC law, limiting the parliamentary sovereignty.
The factortame case is important because in-between the period between this accession and Factortame case, there was no dispute regarding parliamentary sovereignty. The Factortame case has disputed and questioned the strength of parliamentary sovereignty. The legislature retains its function as a law-making organ. However, there is the realization that the parliament needs the executive to implement these laws it passes.
Similarly, under the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary is tasked with interpretation of the laws the parliament passes. Through interpretation of laws, the initial intention of a statute can be defeated. For instance, the purpose of enacting Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was to prevent the encroachment of foreign fishing vessels from accessing the British fishing waters. Nevertheless, this intention was defeated through the interpretation of the Factortame case. Similarly, under the Common Law, the judiciary has been instrumental in its creation and development. Therefore, it is accurate …show more content…
The main statute that is an authority on this subject is Human Rights Act 1998. By the same token, the European community has European Convention on Human Rights that is also instrumental in diluting the Human Rights Act. One of the violations brought forth by the Factortame case is the violation of Article 43 of EC by section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The 75% ownership provision was interpreted as discriminatory, which is an infringement under the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, article 221 was also violated because it attempted to grant British citizens preferential treatment over other citizens from member
In order to regulate fishing by European Union member states, The Common Fisheries Policy was implemented. It introduced a quota system for each of its member states. To go around this problem, some Spanish shipping vessels re-registered as British Vessels. The British government responded to this by enacting Merchant …show more content…
The House of Lords affirmed that article 177 on matters of EC could grant an interim injunction against the Crown. In the suspension of the inconsistent sections of the statute, the House of Lords confirmed the superiority of the EC law, limiting the parliamentary sovereignty.
The factortame case is important because in-between the period between this accession and Factortame case, there was no dispute regarding parliamentary sovereignty. The Factortame case has disputed and questioned the strength of parliamentary sovereignty. The legislature retains its function as a law-making organ. However, there is the realization that the parliament needs the executive to implement these laws it passes.
Similarly, under the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary is tasked with interpretation of the laws the parliament passes. Through interpretation of laws, the initial intention of a statute can be defeated. For instance, the purpose of enacting Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was to prevent the encroachment of foreign fishing vessels from accessing the British fishing waters. Nevertheless, this intention was defeated through the interpretation of the Factortame case. Similarly, under the Common Law, the judiciary has been instrumental in its creation and development. Therefore, it is accurate …show more content…
The main statute that is an authority on this subject is Human Rights Act 1998. By the same token, the European community has European Convention on Human Rights that is also instrumental in diluting the Human Rights Act. One of the violations brought forth by the Factortame case is the violation of Article 43 of EC by section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The 75% ownership provision was interpreted as discriminatory, which is an infringement under the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, article 221 was also violated because it attempted to grant British citizens preferential treatment over other citizens from member