Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Parliamentary Sovereignty is dangerous Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament can essentially pass any law it wants, I think is pretty dangerous and I think in a country there should be a set of rights which cannot be removed by representatives the people elected but only by the people themself through a plebiscite. We don't want a situtation like America but we could have a situation closer to Canada and Australia, where their Parliaments do not have carte blanche.

    Wouldn't it be better to have a limited number of democratic rights in the UK that are beyond the reach of Parliament?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    Parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament can essentially pass any law it wants, I think is pretty dangerous and I think in a country there should be a set of rights which cannot be removed by representatives the people elected but only by the people themself through a plebiscite. We don't want a situtation like America but we could have a situation closer to Canada and Australia, where their Parliaments do not have carte blanche.

    Wouldn't it be better to have a limited number of democratic rights in the UK that are beyond the reach of Parliament?
    A bill of rights set by direct referendum is a good idea in theory, (incedentally something the model house of commons may get in the future). We are, however, answerable to the EU and UN on human rights issues as it stands
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    A bill of rights set by direct referendum is a good idea in theory, (incedentally something the model house of commons may get in the future). We are, however, answerable to the EU and UN on human rights issues as it stands
    Parliament could repeal those laws at any time it wanted to though. I'm not even saying rights like free speech should be included or right to jury trial, but just democratic rights, Parliament shouldn't be the body that decides how and when it's elected.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    A bill of rights set by direct referendum is a good idea in theory, (incedentally something the model house of commons may get in the future). We are, however, answerable to the EU and UN on human rights issues as it stands
    No we're not, we are because Parliament said we were. A single act and that is reversed.

    Parliament is ultimately sovereign, it can do whatever the hell it wants with a single majority act.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    Parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament can essentially pass any law it wants, I think is pretty dangerous and I think in a country there should be a set of rights which cannot be removed by representatives the people elected but only by the people themself through a plebiscite. We don't want a situtation like America but we could have a situation closer to Canada and Australia, where their Parliaments do not have carte blanche.

    Wouldn't it be better to have a limited number of democratic rights in the UK that are beyond the reach of Parliament?
    It's not happened before, in times when democracy was not so universally revered, so why would it happen now?

    Written constitutions and Bills of Rights are not means to protect democratic rights. They're just statements. There's nothing special about them that makes rights easier to defend.

    What defends rights most effectively is a healthy and knowledgeable political culture and strong awareness of rights. Without this, rights won't survive no matter how many constitutional safeguards are built around them; look at Russia and China.

    The only way which Parliament could do that today is if we, the electorate, permit them to do so by not being vigilant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    Parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament can essentially pass any law it wants, I think is pretty dangerous and I think in a country there should be a set of rights which cannot be removed by representatives the people elected but only by the people themself through a plebiscite. We don't want a situtation like America but we could have a situation closer to Canada and Australia, where their Parliaments do not have carte blanche.

    Wouldn't it be better to have a limited number of democratic rights in the UK that are beyond the reach of Parliament?

    Well parliamentary sovereignty could protect us from the increasingly federal EU.

    I think a UK bill of rights should replace the EU's version.

    I'm not happy that parliament has signed over so much power to the EU- it even has the power to fine us!*


    *It's threatening to fine beloved London for breaching pollution targets.This is outrageous, the people of the London/UK had no say over the election of the EU president or the introduction of the various treaties over the years (apart from in 1975 when it sold as economic integration )
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Well parliamentary sovereignty could protect us from the increasingly federal EU.

    I think a UK bill of rights should replace the EU's version.

    I'm not happy that parliament has signed over so much power to the EU- it even has the power to fine us!*

    *It's threatening to fine beloved London for breaching pollution targets.This is outrageous, the people of the London/UK had no say over the election of the EU president or the introduction of the various treaties over the years (apart from in 1975 when it sold as economic integration )
    Or, to look at it another way, our own government has been much too dilatory and involved in making money, avoiding speeding tickets and schmoozing with bankers to give a stuff about pollution levels. Phew, it's quite a relief that someone else cares.

    On the main thread topic, I believe a 'restraint on law making' is generally defined by what many people traditionally term a 'constitution'. Something Britain sadly lacks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Or, to look at it another way, our own government has been much too dilatory and involved in making money, avoiding speeding tickets and schmoozing with bankers to give a stuff about pollution levels. Phew, it's quite a relief that someone else cares.

    On the main thread topic, I believe a 'restraint on law making' is generally defined by what many people traditionally term a 'constitution'. Something Britain sadly lacks.
    I think our nation is slowly been dumbed down with Jeremy Kyle have no shortage of people to go on his show so they can get their 5 minutes of fame. Not to mention how many people just don't vote and how politics seems to be going towards reality tv style- as the politician with the nicest appearance/presentation tend to win over the person with the best policies.And don't mention how text speak and slang has rendered so many young people virtually unemployable beyond the minimum wage.

    I made a thread about ways to improve the Uk and it was shot down as wishful thinking by most...it's attitudes like that is causing the UK to be in relative decline (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...560&p=41709149)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Technically you're right, but considering all the other political restraints on them I don't think they can literally do whatever they want. They just wouldn't win the next election.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Technically you're right, but considering all the other political restraints on them I don't think they can literally do whatever they want. They just wouldn't win the next election.

    But the OP means parliament could even lengthen the election period to 10 years if it wanted to!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But the OP means parliament could even lengthen the election period to 10 years if it wanted to!
    And? When was the last time this happened?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    On the main thread topic, I believe a 'restraint on law making' is generally defined by what many people traditionally term a 'constitution'. Something Britain sadly lacks.
    Britain does have a constitution.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Britain does have a constitution.
    I did mean a written one, not a mishmash of traditional laws and assumptions, which, as the recent vote in Parliament to allow secret courts to exist demonstrates, is apparently based on rather shaky ground.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well I for one think the idea of binding future Parliaments to abide by current customs is just as dangerous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    doesn't the monarch still get final clearance on bills?


    thought it went HoC -> HoL -> Queenie.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And? When was the last time this happened?
    They made a move towards this with fixed parliaments of 5 years!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I did mean a written one, not a mishmash of traditional laws and assumptions, which, as the recent vote in Parliament to allow secret courts to exist demonstrates, is apparently based on rather shaky ground.
    As much as I also disapprove of secret courts this is not exactly congruent to the presence or absence of a written constitution. If anything unwelcome is passed by Parliament it is only by the people voting in a party to do such a thing, and it would be up to us to elect a new government to undo it.

    (They aren't even law yet - still got to go to the Lords - where I expect a lot of resistance, so it's not over)

    I'd much rather this system than a written constitution where perfectly valid and sensible changes are blocked because of the fears and values of a constitution written centuries ago imposing on the present day. It is this curse which prevents the United States from throwing off all kinds of stupid anti-welfare and pro-gun baggage.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    They made a move towards this with fixed parliaments of 5 years!
    ...so they abused their power by making it harder for them to abuse their power?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    They made a move towards this with fixed parliaments of 5 years!
    Parliaments could already last five years. This bill just simply stopped snap elections, which arguably kept parties in power for longer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But the OP means parliament could even lengthen the election period to 10 years if it wanted to!
    Yeah of course, but if it gets to a point where the people will not stand for it, then there would be protests etc and people wouldn't obey the law. Also I know that it's pretty much the government that has the majority of legislative power, but a bill like that probably wouldn't get through the commons as it's not really a united body is it.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.