Connection between Parliamentary Soverignty and Seperation of Powers

I need help with an essay.

Part of it is to explain the connections between the doctrine of the legislative supremacy of parliament and the separation of powers in the uk constitution?

I shouldn't be, but am completely lost in finding any connections between the 2 doctrines.

Reply 1

cheryljc

All I can think of is that through the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty is undermined because there is a system of checks which can limit the use of power, e.g. the legislature can prevent the executive from making laws by voting against them, whereas if there wasn't a separation of powers, the executive would probably completely control the legislature, Lords are separate from government so can prevent the government passing any laws they like.

Reply 2

adelante

2

It might be better to quote the whole essay question in your post for us to contemplate, rather than the extract you have given us.

Briefly, I would make the following comment. Although Parliament is sovereign, because there is no complete separation of powers in the UK constitution the executive will actually dominate Parliament.

Walter Bagehot described this as the "fusion" of executive and legislature and so it created effective, strong government. This was the "efficient secret" of the British political system.

On the other hand Lord Hailsham described this as creating an "elected dictatorship" where the executive can control the legislature to do its will.

So although Parliament is sovereign and has the legal sovereignty, the executive, because it is dominant, has political sovereignty.

Comments? Would be nice to have the whole question and let's see all of this in context.

Ad

Reply 3

Dead1nside

Adelante, could you expand on the differences between legal and political sovereignty please. Is it just that legal sovereignty is where theoretical sovereignty lies but political sovereignty is where actual sovereignty lies? Thank-you in advance.

Reply 4

liamb

9

Check out some old threads of mine OR

the wiki:

https://liambellamywiki.wikispaces.com

Reply 5

adelante

2

Dead1nside

Adelante, could you expand on the differences between legal and political sovereignty please. Is it just that legal sovereignty is where theoretical sovereignty lies but political sovereignty is where actual sovereignty lies? Thank-you in advance.

It's really about where power lies. Legal sovereignty in this case means that only Parliament (the legislature) can make laws; only Parliament has the authority. But political sovereignty is about influencing the law-makers and pushing them to make a decision. Again, it's about power. Power is the ability to make others do your will. And in the British constitution it is the Executive that holds power.

Parliament has the authority; the executive has power. A good example is the Parliamentary vote to invade Iraq. Despite large opposition from Labour MPs the Government forced the vote in its favour because of the way power is wielded. The Government can cajole its backbench MPs, it has access to huge resources compared to its backbenchers. Backbenchers that vote with the government will be looked upon favourably by the Government and party machine. Those who oppose it will be threatened with being cast into the wilderness; they won't get picked for ministerial positions and their Parliamentary career will be limited. "Do what we ask of you, and we'll reward you with a higher paid job."

Ad

Reply 6

Dead1nside

Thank-you adelante. That's some very clear and concise information you've provided. Helped to clear up a bit of a foggy patch in my understanding.

Reply 7

adelante

2

As an example of executive power vs parliamentary sovereignty, today's vote on whether there should be a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty is a good example of power being wielded by the executive.

Labour MPs said Government whips - while claiming to be confident of victory - were desperately trying to buy off the rebels with a mix of threats and inducements.

One rebel leader said: "They even told one MP who is facing a re-selection battle in his constituency that he will lose official party support unless he votes for the Government, or at least stays away from the Commons for the vote."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/05/neuvote105.xml

HTH

Ad

Reply 8

Dead1nside

I was watching the debate in the Commons today. It was a bit of a confusing process though. They voted three times whilst I was watching. What does the bill standing mean? Were they voting for amendments to the bill? Since it was at Committee stage. Thanks.

Reply 9

adelante

2

I didn't watch the debate, but this is more or less what happened. I won't go into the details as I'm not sure of all the procedures myself.

A committee of the whole house of commons were discussing the EU (Amendment) Bill which would incorporate the Lisbon treaty into UK law.

There were two votes on amendments to the Bill.

The first was a Conservative amendment which would mandate a referendum before the Bill was passed into UK law. In other words something would be added to the Bill that says the Lisbon Treaty will pass into UK law if the people of the UK vote "yes" in a referendum. This vote was lost.

The second amendment was proposed by "Labour MP, Ian Davidson, requiring a referendum and empowering the government to extend the question to the whole issue of British membership of the EU". In other words a referendum would also ask the question "do you want the UK to stay in the EU?" This vote was lost.

The third vote was a vote on the whole Bill, which the Government won.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/06/eu.liberaldemocrats

The important issue for the student of politics is to understand the way power is wielded during the debate of the Bill. If you read the above link to the Guardian story it shows how (unlikely) alliances are made.

The big losers as far as political parties are concerned are the Lib-Dems who were split on the issue. It does not reflect well on Nick Clegg's leadership and he had to face front-bench resignations.

David Cameron actually got his party to be relatively united on the issue of the EU.

While Gordon Brown muscled his way through with the usual grabs at the short n curlies that governments deploy.

Ad

Connection between Parliamentary Soverignty and Seperation of Powers

Related discussions

Articles for you