Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered permanently obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK's statutory recognition of human rights. This doctrine can never be restored to the UK constitution.' Critically discuss this statement.
In order to fully discuss this statement, we must first define 'Parliamentary sovereignty', according to 'Sovereignty' is used to describe 'the power of law-making unrestricted by any legal limit'[1] although it can also be used to identify the point at which the state holds political power. To describe parliamentary sovereignty as a constitutional relic can be considered accurate since the concept of British constitutional law is indeed historic, in part, when compared to that of other countries. PS is one of the most considered to be one of the oldest parts of Britain's constitution, so the quote which implies its 'obsolete' is up for debate since the Royal Proactive and the magna carta are still active parts of the constitution today.
The European Unions' supremacy of law comes from the European communities act of 1972. In section 2(1) of the act enforces the agreement that any EU law which is applicable is automatically binding and can overrule any existing national law. The supremacy is often criticized as a factor which would have been discussed during negotiations and yet was agreed upon at the time by the Conservative government; it can also be seen as a causation for Brexit as it undermines British law and order. However it's debatable how limiting the act can be since the government would not have agreed to a policy which removes their power to govern fully as it would make that active government extremely unpopular. Dicey stated that 'The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.'[2] This explains that PS is still important to those in power so therefore, it rejects the idea in hand of it being a 'relic' or that it has been made 'permanently obsolete'. Through this statement we can identify the issue as it is clearly stated that the Court of Justice of the European Union should, in theory, be unable to restrict or overrule the British parliament in any way and so the rift creates difficulties for domestic courts for the argument as to which stament holds power over the other and which the courts should follow up.
The initial statement makes claim that the UK's statutory recognition of human rights should be interpreted as a negative connotation to parliamentary sovereignty, yet, it could be seen as a necessity that a state without any recognition of human rights could not operate correctly as there would be no provisions to protect the publ...
