• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate the extent to which the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Evaluate the extent to which the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign. Consider both legal and political factors. Before exploring the extent to which our Parliament is sovereign, one must first understand what Parliamentary sovereignty means. When describing Parliament as sovereign, it means it holds the supreme power - the ultimate source of political authority and the authority to impose and amend laws. In other words our Parliament is sovereign, and it owes obedience to no other. However, there are some limitations on this power that need to be discussed. How far can the United Kingdom Parliament be sovereign, if certain, more specific areas of law or other jurisdictions can overrule it? In this essay I will explore how far Parliament is sovereign, and if there are limitations, what they are and whether they mean Parliament cannot be sovereign at all. There are many arguments that suggest that even from the outset, Parliament had limitations put on it - in other words it was born unfree. The 1707 Acts of Union brought about the Great British Parliament between Scotland and England, many agree that this itself induced limitations on Parliament's Power. This is most strongly argued by JDB Mitchell, TB Smith and Neil MacCormick on two points.1 Firstly, the Acts of Union preceded the new Parliament, and were enacted by two separate entities - the Scottish and English Parliaments respectively which can be regarded as a constitutional act which created and limited Parliament. ...read more.

Middle

A law may have legal force, but if it were inhumane and undemocratic it would perhaps have no political force. The question is could the courts refuse to follow it? Lord Irvine of Lairg has rejected this4, yet it continues to be a topic of debate. One good example is that of a constitutional crisis - the courts may challenge Acts in this case, and perhaps this could lead to other examples of court interference in the future. European Union Law is an important limit on Parliamentary Sovereignty - the European Court of Justice is the highest court in relation to Community matters and would therefore be supreme to our Parliament. This means that Parliament cannot legislate against EU Law, which puts a limit on what Parliament can do. Unless the United Kingdom withdrew, our Parliament would still have to legislate in accordance with EU Law. This highlights another important political point - even though Parliament would be legally supreme, would it be politically acceptable to withdraw from the European Union, and consequently is this limitation of Parliamentary Sovereignty due to a political factor? Furthermore, one could argue that Parliament is still Sovereign in domestic affairs. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another important "political" factor in Parliamentary Sovereignty. It has not been entrenched into our domestic law and therefore courts should not strike down legislation that is incompatible with it. ...read more.

Conclusion

Secondly, it has been said that Parliament can in fact bind future Parliaments over the composition of the houses, or the means of succession to the throne. This was the Great Reform Act of 1832 whereby the House of Commons was reformed in order to be more democratic. This would bind future Parliaments in that the House would only be lawful if elected in accordance with the 1832 Act.8 This question is a difficult one to conclude, although it can be argued that at every election Parliament changes with the people, and consequently Sovereignty should perhaps apply to the Parliament of the time, otherwise it would be very easy to make irreparable damage to the future democracy of our country (one could keep a particular Parliament in power despite elections). In my opinion, Parliamentary Sovereignty still remains intact, not only in a legal sense but also in a political way too. There have been undoubted erosions in Parliament's power, but how much they affect the doctrine needs to be questioned, for example, EU Law is only supreme in community matters, and holds no baring in our domestic jurisdiction. Furthermore, courts are reluctant to call into question legislation, and in most instances has no power to rule against law, meaning that even politically Sovereignty still exists. This biggest argument is that when Dicey introduced the idea of "Parliamentary Sovereignty" he meant it to be an expressly legal doctrine. In this way Parliament is of course still Sovereign - legally they can legislate on what they wish, whether it has political ramifications or not. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies essays

  1. Sovereignty and Democracy in the European Union.

    Why do people feel alienated ? I would suggest five reasons in particular: What was Britain getting into? First, as far as Britain is concerned, people feel they were tricked from the outset. Those who negotiated our entry understood perfectly well that the Community was much more than a trade association.

  2. The question of whether or not Parliament is effective as a government watchdog consists ...

    One of the ways is using standing committees, which are temporary committees. They are set up to examine a certain part of a Bill, and then are dispended. All the members are temporary, and are new for each bill. Their purpose is to scrutinise Bills, clause by clause and propose amendments.

  1. To what extent was the outbreak of the civil war in england caused by ...

    wealthy nobles, once the sides had been drawn, Charles attempted to arrest Pym and his opposition by leading 400 soldiers into Parliament only to find that Pym and the other leaders had left and were being protected in the city.36 Merriman argues that once this move had been made there

  2. Modern Studies Dissertation

    Labour formed a majority government in October 1974 with only 39% of the vote, allowing a party to make decisions that don't have a majority support. The present system has been seen to discriminate that when the party's share of the vote is markedly under-represented in its share of the

  1. Why were the British unable to secure a united India at independence in 1947?

    This was to do with the slaughter of cows, a revered animal in the Hindu religion, but one often sacrificed by Muslims on religious occasions. Muslim competition for job's whether relatively prestigious in government or lowly bureaucratic jobs, intensified the hostility of lower middle-class Hindus.

  2. How far has the United Kingdom Implemented a system of separation of powers.

    Separation of powers is essential in a democracy and the importance of an impartial and independent Judiciary cannot be emphasised enough. This separation of powers concept is now a widely accepted blueprint of modern democracies. The modern idea of the separation of power is what John Locke wrote in 'Two Treatises of Government' (1683).

  1. Is it true to say that the British parliament is no longer truly sovereign?

    Proposals are usually initiated elsewhere and are then agreed upon in parliament. Many see parliament's power as being in decline, especially since the end of the Second World War, especially as the emergence of a system of only two dominant parties post 1945 has led to the control of government by one party with normally an assured majority in Parliament.

  2. European Union: Council of Ministers.

    There were no judicial executions, although courts continued to pass death sentences. Armed opposition groups committed at least 39 deliberate and arbitrary killings of prisoners and civilians. Prison sentences were imposed on many people who had non-violently criticized the government�s policies towards the Kurdish minority.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work