‘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.’
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, it is legislated by the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen; it is usually perceived as the most important aspect of the UK constitution, “The supremacy of Parliament is the constitution”. It is often understood as “The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more no less than this, namely, that parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or …show more content…
It substantially states all powers, rights, liabilities, obligations and restrictions of EU law will be incorporated into UK law; one of these powers are present in the ruling of Costa v. ENEL in which every court can enforce EU law regardless of the local state not allowing it. The supremacy of the European Community law is supported by the judgement in the Factortame case, “ Where a national court that the ‘sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law’, then the court ‘must set aside that rule’”; at an international level there is much confusion as to who the courts will rule in favour of. In terms of the 1972 Parliament binding the 1988 Parliament by restricting its sovereignty, it was said “What we have, in a constitutional sense, is a revolution...”, Wade is clearly stating that the courts will favour more towards EU law as there is no Parliamentary sovereignty, nor a replacement. With regards to cases held within the UK, we turn to the administrative cases of Mortensen v. Peters in which it was proved that courts are first bound by domestic law and can go against EU law when necessary, this ruling was further upheld in the Cheney v …show more content…
The UK’s recognition of statutory rights have not altered or challenged Parliamentary sovereignty so much so as to make it irrelevant, additionally the UK’s membership of the EU and current legislation does not impose severe restrictions on sovereignty to render it obsolete; overall whilst there are restrictions present, they are minimal and make Parliamentary sovereignty a constitutional
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, it is legislated by the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen; it is usually perceived as the most important aspect of the UK constitution, “The supremacy of Parliament is the constitution”. It is often understood as “The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more no less than this, namely, that parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or …show more content…
It substantially states all powers, rights, liabilities, obligations and restrictions of EU law will be incorporated into UK law; one of these powers are present in the ruling of Costa v. ENEL in which every court can enforce EU law regardless of the local state not allowing it. The supremacy of the European Community law is supported by the judgement in the Factortame case, “ Where a national court that the ‘sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law’, then the court ‘must set aside that rule’”; at an international level there is much confusion as to who the courts will rule in favour of. In terms of the 1972 Parliament binding the 1988 Parliament by restricting its sovereignty, it was said “What we have, in a constitutional sense, is a revolution...”, Wade is clearly stating that the courts will favour more towards EU law as there is no Parliamentary sovereignty, nor a replacement. With regards to cases held within the UK, we turn to the administrative cases of Mortensen v. Peters in which it was proved that courts are first bound by domestic law and can go against EU law when necessary, this ruling was further upheld in the Cheney v …show more content…
The UK’s recognition of statutory rights have not altered or challenged Parliamentary sovereignty so much so as to make it irrelevant, additionally the UK’s membership of the EU and current legislation does not impose severe restrictions on sovereignty to render it obsolete; overall whilst there are restrictions present, they are minimal and make Parliamentary sovereignty a constitutional