Parliamentary Sovereignty

It remains a first principle of our entire uprightness that fan tan in enacting primary legislation is s all overeign. parliamentary reign has been qualified though non departed from in different shipway by our adoption of the police oblige of the European Union through the European Communities strike 1972 and by the Human Rights Act 1998. Per Lord Justice Laws, R (MISICK) v Secretary of order for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 2010 EWCA Civ 1549 respect this program line with reference to appropriate legal authorities.In stage to evaluate this sound outment it is important to understand what sevensary reign is and how it relates to European Union righteousness with the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998. The ism of parliamentary reign misbegots that Parliament is the supreme Law maker of the UK, therefore Parliament is free to make or unmake whatever right it wishes with the exception that it can non limit its own po wer or bind itself when it comes to forthcoming legislation.This dictates that all courts essential uphold legislation laid down by Parliament. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty heart neither more nor less than this, videlicet that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any faithfulness whatever and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or located aside the legislation of Parliament The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was derived from the unsounded doctrines of the Magna Carta, Petition of Rights and the bill of Rights.Unlike many opposite countries the UK has no written makeup meaning that it is flexible to be interpreted in the courts however the articulate sees fit. The doctrine of Parliamentary domination is clearly in conflict with the beat recognition of the community law in the UK. in m, many things act so as to make parliamentary supremacy delusive, since inter matter treaty obligations mean that certain legislation would never be passed. The treaty of Rome does not state that EU law is to take precedence over house servant law.However, the ECJ in the case of Costa v ENEL stated that member States argon bound to follow EU law. This is reflected in the European Communities Act 1972, s 2(1) which provides that rights, powers and obligations under the Treaties be, without further enactment, to be given legal progeny in member States. Accordingly, directly applicable and directly effective EU law would take precedence over domestic law and if domestic law conflicted with EU law, domestic law would need to be changed. The European Communities Act 1972 s. (1)4 directly imposes provisions of the Treaties, together with EU Regulations and other directly applicable European law, whether they were passed before or after the UK joined the European Union. It as well as invalidates existing domestic law wherever the two conflict and thereby the former is directly valid. Membership of the European Union is derogation from parliamentary sovereignty since all of the European Unions powers flow from Parliaments sovereignty through the original act, and therefore Parliament retains ultimate sovereignty.There is a special(a) retention of parliamentary sovereignty in many areas of European concern, since the UK has moderate powers to determine penalties for breach of European Union law, and since the option is often left(a) open in directives not to implement parts of the directive. It would appear that the doctrine of Parliament supremacy has been crucially qualified by the UK membership of the community. If irresponsible supremacy no longer exists, it could be restored by repealing European club Act 1972.But the practical reality is that a parvenue legal order has been created, in which the community law has supremacy over national law. The European Union was accused by Lord Denning of interfering with Parliament sovereignty i n the absence of express authority by the EC Treaty. However the UK membership and the European Union suck in together caused a significant area of legislative power to pass to EU. This does not mean that it is perpetual but if the UK decided to leave the European Union, then Parliament could motion its ultimate sovereign authority by Act of Parliament and epeal the European Communities Act 1972, whereby the provisions of the EU Treaties would no longer have effect in domestic law. If the supremacy within the European federation of partnership law over the national law of member states was not forever and a day inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well ceremonious in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the coupled Kingdom joined the friendship. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament genuine when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. European Union Law challenges the invention of Parliamentary Sovere ignty.The European Union also has the doctrine of supremacy which means all member states must(prenominal) adhere to European Union laws as opposed to their own national laws. This may have restrained Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK upon its entry to the European Union in 1972. In order to comply with the European Court of Justice the UK Parliament enacted the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Lord Denning stated that signing the treaty was only the first step as alliance law could not be implemented merely by signing a Treaty of Accession.Parliament passed the European Community Act 1972, which came into force on 1st January 1973, whereby Community law become applicable in the UK. It is an essential aspect of sovereignty that all states should have supreme control over their internal affairs, mental object to the recognised limitation imposed by international law. Parliamentary acclamation is not required for EU legislation that is binding in the UK, which once more jeopardises the UK sovereignty. The major case that encapsulates this is Factortame, by enacting the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, Parliament breached European law.In this case the compatibility was challenged. The Factortame decision marks a clear, if not important, that innate departure from the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty. Since Factortame, UK law now recognises that Community institutions have the right to make decisions and issue regulations which may override legislation by Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced in order to comply with the European figure of Human Rights so that national law was more matched with European Union law and to protect Parliamentary sovereignty. It first came into force on 2 October 2000.TheHuman Rights Actempowers courtsto read legislation in such a way as to give effect to the European Convention onHuman Rights. Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the government mu st abide by and must follow final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Actions of UK judges are limited by a constitutional compromise developed over centuries, while European judges have been given enormous power. Although Parliament could pass legislation today withdrawing Britain from the EU and Community law would can to apply at the national level.The Human Rights Act 1998 fronts only to go so far where Parliament is concerned as is shown with the relatively new anti-terrorism laws. S. 2(1) of the HRA makes it clear these laws are still to be interpreted by the courts in their own way. A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, declaration or advisory spirit of the European Court of Human Rights (b) decision of the Commission etc. . henever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arise n. Ever since the UK joined the EU in 1972, the EU has played an increasing role in Britain, and as a result has had an impact on the UK sovereignty. Therefore clearly any Community law would prevail over UK legislation passed before 1972, as this is uncontroversial and accords with the traditional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However, the doctrine depends largely on the fealty by the judiciary to the doctrine of implied repeal. So the issue arises as s. (4), which declares that any future enactment to be passed must be applied takings to the provisions of the ECA 1972. Therefore since Dicey defines sovereignty as continuing , it would seem that s. 2(4) is clearly an attempt by parliament, contrary to the very principle of the UKs constitutional, to suspend the doctrine of implied repeal and consequently, bind its successors. As membership of the European Union is derogation from Parliamentary Sovereignty in practice, all of the European Unions powers flow from Parliame nts original Act and therefore sure Parliament retains ultimate supreme.Lord Denning stated that if the UK chose to take back complete supremacy it could easily do so by leaving the European Union. If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Actwith the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament. This could create problems for the UK in certain areas, both economically and politically.The UK now having been a member state for nearly 30 years has to take the economic growth and other positive aspects with the negative aspects of organism a member state, one being a lesser sense of Parliamentary sovereignty. As stated by Margaret Thatcher It is a myth that our membership of the Community will suffocate national tradition and culture. Are the Germans any less Ger man for being in the Community, or the French any less French? Of course they are not References House of Commons European scrutiny committee. (2010). The EU Bill and Parliamentary sovereignty. available http//www. ublications. parliament. uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/633i. pdf European Communities Act 1972. Available http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1972/68/section/1. closing accessed1st March 2012 Human Rights Act 1998. Available http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1998/42/ content. Last accessed1st March 2012 Brazier, R. (). APPENDIX 1 THE sevens ACTS. Available http//www. publications. parliament. uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/141/14104. htm. Last accessed 1st March 2012 Wagner, A. (2011). Does parliamentary sovereignty still reign supreme?. Available http//www. guardian. o. uk/law/2011/jan/27/supreme-court-parliamentary-sovereignty. Last accessed 1st March 2012. (2011). Imprisoned by a Doctrine The fresh Defence of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Available http/ /ojls. oxfordjournals. org/content/early/2011/10/19/ojls. gqr027. abstract. Last accessed 1st March 2012 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame (No. 2) 1991 1 AC 603 Flaminio Costa v ENEL1964 ECR 585 (6/64) 1 . Dicey, A. V. 1982 1914. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION. 8th ed. Indianapolis Liberty stock 2 .Flaminio Costa v ENEL1964 ECR 585 (6/64) 3 . http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1972/68/section/1 4 . Lord Denningin Bulmer Ltd v J. Bollinger (1974) 5 . R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame (No. 2) 1991 1 AC 603 6 . Martin, E. Oxford Dictionary of Law (2002), 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, Press, Pg 469 7 . http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1988/12/contents 8 . http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents 9 . Human Rights Act 1998, http//www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents 10 . Lord Denning