is parliament sovereign? Watch

chunters
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
So... Is Dicey right? Or are we more fans of Allan with a sprinkling of Lord Hope?

Is Parliament sovereign?
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Lord Steyn [Jackson] ftw.

No longer "pure and absolute".

Still "general principle of our constitution".

(Original post by Lord Steyn)
The classic account given by Dicey of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, pure and absolute as it was, can now be seen to be out of place in the modern United Kingdom.

Nevertheless, the supremacy of Parliament is still the general principle of our constitution. It is a construct of the common law. The judges created this principle. If that is so, it is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism.

In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish.
0
reply
yastyb
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Lord Steyn [Jackson] ftw.

No longer "pure and absolute".

Still "general principle of our constitution".
It's supremacy is generally seen is illusive. It is in theory sovereign but in practice it appears to be constrained by EU law for example or the HRA. Strasbourg is a higher court and as Van Gen Loos case (or some name close to that) states, EU law has direct effect in the UK and therefore harmonization of laws to comply with EU law is a compulsion brought on parliament, hindering its sovereignty. I don't agree with that. I believe the constitution is the higher law, although unwritten. As you know there are laws in the UK which have constitutional status. In that respect, these laws, I believe, are so potent that they can be placed at the pinnacle of these legal "norms" and supersede EU law. Parliament must not be compelled to change these constitutional laws and will never be. They are the highest form of law. That's just a dimension of parliamentary sov. You could look at the courts' approach to legislative texts and their often robust interpretation of these, which could go against the initial intention of Parliament. (Ghaiden v Mendoza). You could look at the effect of the declaration of incompatibility and its persuasive force (it has seldom been rejected, I think the only case was the prisoner's vote case). You could look at delegated legislation and parliament's relation to the executive. Argument goes that the executive has so much control over parliament that it can no longer be called sov. There's a panoply of literature on this crazy boring stuff. Just do some reading. Try Tomkins or Elliotts.
0
reply
flamboy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
the EU obviously means that if parliament made a law, the EU can technically strike it down with its own legislation, as our parliament gives the EU this right
but is that really a lack of sovereignty or is that parliamentary sovereignty by proxy?
I'd say that it's "superficial sovereignty" - just because it's superficial, though, it doesn't mean it's not sovereignty
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Of course not. The Junker plan involves federalising Europe anyways so what's left of our soverignty if any will soon disappear. All our laws are subject to EU regulation and must be compatible with the EU convention on human rights. Therefore as well as the EU directly passing UK laws or preventing laws being adopted it also indirectly controls the type of laws we pass as they have to undergo EU regulation. Also every so often EU member nations receive an economical report regarding the necessary actions a government must take. As a member you have to meet a certain set of demands in the report.

We control few major policies nowadays, and either way Europe is heading into a United States of Europe whereby there is an EU wide tax, EU wide currency, EU wide stock market, EU wide army, EU wide foreign aid policy, EU wide education reform, EU wide renationalisation, EU wide migration, EU wide healthcare system, EU wide foreign policy and so on. National governments will act more like governors do in America, the fact is all our sovereignty will eventually disappear anyway. It slowly has since the 70s, the next 40 years will see it be gone for good.

As our GDP growth is expected to result in our economy surpassing Germany in the near future, expect the UK to fund the greatest proportion of the project and receive less from it as a result. One can argue with the state of the EU we are better going it alone and re igniting our relationship with the emerging commonwealth nations than carrying the EU forward.

So just remember when you vote for Tories, liberals, Labour, greens and anyone but UKIP it all arrives at the same result, a full transfer of remaining powers to Brussels. The argument that lib/lab/con is practically the same thing could not be more true.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by yastyb)
It's supremacy is generally seen is illusive. It is in theory sovereign…
I'm with you up to this point, but…

(Original post by yastyb)
…but in practice it appears to be constrained by EU law for example or the HRA.
First things first: the HRA has nothing to do with the EU, and as it is a UK Act of Parliament it can only mean that Parliament is supreme in deciding to adopt it (ie the underlying values taken from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Additionally, any nation starts reducing its sovereignty as soon as it enters into binding agreements with other nations, or international bodies. The extent to which these obligations are enforceable vary from case to case. So, whenever there is an international treaty a state takes on obligations that theoretically limit its ability to do everything it might want. But those examples are in no way limited to relations with the EU or the ECHR.

Ultimately Parliament is supreme, because it could choose to withdraw from those obligations. But it would also have to live with the consequences of that decision.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Warning, dope alert:

(Original post by The two eds)
All our laws are subject to EU regulation and must be compatible with the EU convention on human rights.
There is no connection between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights is in Strasbourg, which is in the EU, and the EU is a signatory to the ECHR, but it is not a body of the EU.

EU wide army…
There is already a Europe-wide force to which we are committed, it's called NATO. Again it has nothing to do with the EU. But I think most people would believe that cooperation on security in Europe is a good thing.

The rest of your spouting is just nonsense.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by typonaut)
Warning, dope alert:



There is no connection between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights is in Strasbourg, which is in the EU, and the EU is a signatory to the ECHR, but it is not a body of the EU.



There is already a Europe-wide force to which we are committed, it's called NATO. Again it has nothing to do with the EU. But I think most people would believe that cooperation on security in Europe is a good thing.

The rest of your spouting is just nonsense.
I am fully aware of that but you should know that by being a signatory of the EU it is necessary to be a signatory of the EU convention on human rights and ECHR. Everyone knows this so don't waste my time.

And wow please God help me. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is not an EU army or an EU creation of any sort. Please research it. Also Junker announced we need an EU wide army where each member state contributes a set of troops who serve behind the EU flag, not the NATO command.

Everything you said was complete nonsense, typical lefty though, so I do not hold it against you. You support federalisation so of course you oppose anyone who points out the flaws and problems of the EU. No doubt you support the actions against Greece too. German and French banks facilitating their transition to the Euro, loaning money that could not be repaid, then using bail out funds to bail out German and French banks but yet seeing the Greeks at the mercy of Merkel.
0
reply
yastyb
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by typonaut)
I'm with you up to this point, but…



First things first: the HRA has nothing to do with the EU, and as it is a UK Act of Parliament it can only mean that Parliament is supreme in deciding to adopt it (ie the underlying values taken from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Additionally, any nation starts reducing its sovereignty as soon as it enters into binding agreements with other nations, or international bodies. The extent to which these obligations are enforceable vary from case to case. So, whenever there is an international treaty a state takes on obligations that theoretically limit its ability to do everything it might want. But those examples are in no way limited to relations with the EU or the ECHR.

Ultimately Parliament is supreme, because it could choose to withdraw from those obligations. But it would also have to live with the consequences of that decision.
I understand quite well that the HRA has nothing to do with EU law and I cannot see why you thought I was conflating them. When I said the HRA, I meant a direct application of the ECHR. The debate is much deeper than what your or I can manage to write in a post. First of all, the two legal instruments directly opposable to the UK are the EU and the ECHR. Other obligations are only obligations erga omnes partes with no legal ramification or sanctions, not even political for most instances. The consequences of breaking the EU and the ECHR are far graver (being kicked out of the EU community). Consequences of breaking international treaties are not too great and would depend almost exclusively on the power of the country breaking them. The UK in this instant would have no problem doing so as does the US. By saying that their constraint is "in no way limited" you are implying other forms of strong legal recourse objectionable to the UK. I see them as very few and impotent. Secondly, you're saying that when a state takes on obligations such as with the EU they are "theoretically limited to what they can do". That too is incorrect. The limitation is not theoretical at all but very existent and tangible. When you say theoretical you would be saying that these limitations would only arise in theory, if something astoundingly bizarre happens. The contrary could be said about Parliament's sov because it can easily be argued that its sov is too theoretical and inexistent in practice. Arguments on sovereignty however go both ways. In the abstract what you say is correct but is far too shallow and sometimes vague or imprecise such as demonstrated above or here's another example "obligations which are enforceable vary from case to case"; this little statement you threw in there cannot be reconciled with strict regulations in vigor or existent case law. The debate is far too multitudinous to be thoroughly discussed here and this response to you is only to teach you that you shouldn't answer people in a cocky way.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by The two eds)
I am fully aware of that but you should know that by being a signatory of the EU it is necessary to be a signatory of the EU convention on human rights and ECHR. Everyone knows this so don't waste my time.
Please point me to the text of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

Further dope alert:

And wow please God help me. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is not an EU army or an EU creation of any sort. Please research it.
Your problem is that you do not understand the the term "Europe" is distinct from "European Union". Take a look, I never wrote that NATO was an EU organisation.

All you are illustrating right now is that your own prejudice is the lens through which you can distort reality.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by typonaut)
Please point me to the text of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

Further dope alert:



Your problem is that you do not understand the the term "Europe" is distinct from "European Union". Take a look, I never wrote that NATO was an EU organisation.

All you are illustrating right now is that your own prejudice is the lens through which you can distort reality.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Be sure to read as much as you can but on page 30 it says in regards to signatories that the EU may accede to the convention and since the EU did accede to the convention and since the convention runs in conjunction with the ECHR as stated a few pages below page 30, as a result all EU members by EU law are subject to the convention and ECHR.

You failed to understand my point. I was making a distinction between EU related and Europe related armed forces. It would result in all individual NATO members who happen to be in the EU merging into a single entity or member meaning individual nations can not as sovereignty serves decide their own actions. So Junker did propose an EU wide army and intends to enforce it. Please read up on this.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by yastyb)
The debate is far too multitudinous to be thoroughly discussed here and this response to you is only to teach you that you shouldn't answer people in a cocky way.
Please, get a grip on yourself. You think you know a little bit about the EU and the ECHR, but in reality, where is the enforcement in these treaties over any other treaties? Is the EU going to invade if we don't pay a fine? Is the ECHR going to come and arrest the Prime Minister?

We are only bound by these agreements because we cooperate in their structure - if we choose not to then we have to face the consequences. Which might mean getting booted out of that particular organisation.

What about the sanctions that could be placed upon the UK via GATT, WIPO, etc? We are currently taking part in sanctions against Russia, and have been taking part in sanctions against Iran - is it not clear that those kind of sanctions could equally be applied to the UK if we were not to comply with our international obligations, in various treaties. It's trade and finance that are the real tools to force us to comply, not the threats that can be made as some kind of enforcement.
1
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by The two eds)
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Be sure to read as much as you can but on page 30 it says in regards to signatories that the EU may accede to the convention and since the EU did accede to the convention and since the convention runs in conjunction with the ECHR as stated a few pages below page 30, as a result all EU members by EU law are subject to the convention and ECHR.

You failed to understand my point. I was making a distinction between EU related and Europe related armed forces. It would result in all individual NATO members who happen to be in the EU merging into a single entity or member meaning individual nations can not as sovereignty serves decide their own actions. So Junker did propose an EU wide army and intends to enforce it. Please read up on this.
Right, so you concede that there is no EU Convention on Human Rights, the EU just happens to be a signatory to the ECHR (which was created by an unconnected body, that happens to have "Europe" in the name). UEFA has nothing to do with the EU either, right?

I never wrote that there was already an EU army, I wrote that there was already a Europe-wide force for security in the region, and that most people support that idea. Do you dispute that?

Whatever Junker says he cannot enforce without cooperation by the member states.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by typonaut)
Right, so you concede that there is no EU Convention on Human Rights, the EU just happens to be a signatory to the ECHR (which was created by an unconnected body, that happens to have "Europe" in the name). UEFA has nothing to do with the EU either, right?

I never wrote that there was already an EU army, I wrote that there was already a Europe-wide force for security in the region, and that most people support that idea. Do you dispute that?

Whatever Junker says he cannot enforce without cooperation by the member states.
Alright it is clear you are now pulling at strings and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

A convention on human rights is an assembly and essentially a treaty of some sort. Since the EU is a signatory of the convention then it is by default an EU convention on human rights. Any member state who sings up for the EU automatically signs for the assembly and therefore it is an EU obligation. You are desperate if this is your topic of argument. The fact is my point before stands true- UK law is regulated via an EU convention on human rights regardless of whether the convention was created via the EU. It was adopted by the EU and is therefore an EU convention.

You can not even dispute my point on Junker proposing an EU wide army and enforcing it. 26/28 member states backed him, he has overwhelming majority support in the EU parliament and as part of EU convention he can if he receives over 80% of support overrule any member states including the UK in ruling we form an EU wide army. That or we leave the EU which of course Tories nor Labour would never consider.

By the way I already stated the distinction between the EU and NATO forces in relation to Europe, this topic is pointless and going nowhere, I will not waste my time repeating myself because you are too tired to read and apply common sense to what I was saying. I was not aware I was communicating with a robot who relies on word for word to understand what the hell was being conveyed. God mate.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by The two eds)
Alright it is clear you are now pulling at strings and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

A convention on human rights is an assembly and essentially a treaty of some sort. Since the EU is a signatory of the convention then it is by default an EU convention on human rights.
Come on, this is just pure nonsense. If you hold that position then the next logical position is that there is a UK Convention on Human Rights, because the UK is a signatory. If that's the case, then how can there be any loss of sovereignty if it's the UK's treaty? Completely tying yourself-up in knots you are.

(Original post by The two eds)
Any member state who sings up for the EU automatically signs for the assembly and therefore it is an EU obligation.
I never wrote that it was not an obligation fro future members. But that still does not make it the "EU Convention on Human Rights. Such a thing does not exist.

(Original post by The two eds)
You are desperate if this is your topic of argument. The fact is my point before stands true- UK law is regulated via an EU convention on human rights regardless of whether the convention was created via the EU. It was adopted by the EU and is therefore an EU convention.
A bit of history. The UK signed the ECHR in 1950, it was a founding signatory, and by all accounts was the major force and draughter of the treaty. The EU was not founded until 1957 (or that's the conventional wisdom) and the UK did not become a member of the EU until 1973. So how did the UK have the ECHR thrust upon it by the EU?

(Original post by The two eds)
You can not even dispute my point on Junker proposing an EU wide army and enforcing it.
I'm pretty sure that there are no EU treaties that propose an EU army. Please point them out to me?

So, Junker can put forward whatever ideas he likes, he can do nothing without treaty change.

(Original post by The two eds)
By the way I already stated the distinction between the EU and NATO forces in relation to Europe, this topic is pointless and going nowhere, I will not waste my time repeating myself because you are too tired to read and apply common sense to what I was saying. I was not aware I was communicating with a robot who relies on word for word to understand what the hell was being conveyed. God mate.
The thread of the discussion is clear above. If you cannot stand by what you have written then at least have the grace to withdraw those statements.

God won't help you here.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by typonaut)
Come on, this is just pure nonsense. If you hold that position then the next logical position is that there is a UK Convention on Human Rights, because the UK is a signatory. If that's the case, then how can there be any loss of sovereignty if it's the UK's treaty? Completely tying yourself-up in knots you are.



I never wrote that it was not an obligation fro future members. But that still does not make it the "EU Convention on Human Rights. Such a thing does not exist.



A bit of history. The UK signed the ECHR in 1950, it was a founding signatory, and by all accounts was the major force and draughter of the treaty. The EU was not founded until 1957 (or that's the conventional wisdom) and the UK did not become a member of the EU until 1973. So how did the UK have the ECHR thrust upon it by the EU?



I'm pretty sure that there are no EU treaties that propose an EU army. Please point them out to me?

So, Junker can put forward whatever ideas he likes, he can do nothing without treaty change.



The thread of the discussion is clear above. If you cannot stand by what you have written then at least have the grace to withdraw those statements.

God won't help you here.
Lol I will give you what you want, you are too young to debate with, the fact is my points which you disregarded have all been proved true so I won't waste my time going in circles satisfying your obsession with issues irrelevant to the points I made at the beginning. I don't even know how the hell we ended up here but the conclusion Is as follows:

-EU signatories are obligated to abide by the ECHR and all EU conventions including the convention on human rights
-Europe is heading into a federalised Union which by meaning means we have EU wide laws adopted by every member state including an army and tax for example
-Junker has majority support in the EU parliament and from 26 member states
-Achieving over 80% of support can see him overhaul any opposition from the member states
-An EU army can and will be enforced regardless of NATO. NATO is independent of the issue.
-All our laws are regulated and are obligated to follow EU convention

I am ganno sleep now knowing at least I answered the question while you blabbered on about rubbish every time you were proved wrong, Au revoir 😘
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Most people utterly miss the point on this question. 'Sovereignty' refers to ultimate, theoretical legal authority within the system. Whilst the exact contours of Parliament's sovereignty can be seen to have changed somewhat of late, the ultimate legal authority remains with Parliament, however much, as a matter of practice, the European legislature passes law that applies here.

A departure from this position would (according to the Hartian analysis) be extra-legal -- it would be a change of the legal system, rather than a change within it. All that can be said is that it is hard to see the odd dictum from the odd law lord as in itself constituting such a change. In essence, if the courts tried to do that (openly defy the will of parliament), we would have to see what happened. The position couldn't be determined by reference to the legal rules of the present system. To this extent, the politics matters: but so far as people imply that parliament is not 'sovereign' because it is politically influenced one way or another, or because it has authorised another body to make laws affecting the UK, etc, they are way off the mark.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Most people utterly miss the point on this question. 'Sovereignty' refers to ultimate, theoretical legal authority within the system. Whilst the exact contours of Parliament's sovereignty can be seen to have changed somewhat of late, the ultimate legal authority remains with Parliament, however much, as a matter of practice, the European legislature passes law that applies here.
I agree with this position. The only thing I would add is that it's wrong to limit the outside influence to the "European" legislature (I presume that you mean "EU" legislature). As above, the external elements comprise any international agreements, not just those stemming from the Lisbon treaty.
0
reply
typonaut
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by The two eds)
Lol I will give you what you want, you are too young to debate with…
You genuinely have no clue.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cardiff University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • University of Portsmouth
    Postgraduate and Part-Time Open Evenings Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • Middlesex University London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (78)
21.97%
Before I was 12 (124)
34.93%
13 (53)
14.93%
14 (46)
12.96%
15 (25)
7.04%
16 (10)
2.82%
17 (2)
0.56%
18 (3)
0.85%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
1.13%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (10)
2.82%

Watched Threads

View All