10 ms·

"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign." The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Within the EU, UK Parliament is not qui

"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign." The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)

edblarney 10y ago
I don't know why someone would down-vote this. Here it is from the EU [1] The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'. Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy. [1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...
- aryehof 10y ago
  You are downvoted because you are incorrect. The UK Parliament can decide to adhere to EU law, and just as easily take that away. Parliamentary sovereignty which includes the inability to bind or restrict any future Parliament, is the foundation of UK constitutional law - http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/
edblarney 10y ago
I don't know why someone would down-vote this. Here it is from the EU [1] The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'. Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy. [1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...
jeremysmyth 10y ago
The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Only in areas where the EU has competence, and these are explicitly enumerated in various treaties; by default, the EU has no competence, so it only has powers to legislate where those powers are explicitly agreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Aai0020 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3...
- edblarney 10y ago
  "The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Only in areas where the EU has competence," Yes. And that's a pretty long list that touches on nearly every level of governance. In fact - that list is in some ways more pervasive that the Canadian governments ability to intercede in Provincial affairs. Fun fact: Canada does not even have 'free trade' within it's provinces as the Federal government doesn't effectively have the ability to regulate it. Yet nobody would claim that 'Ontario' is sovereign. It would seem you've provided evidence that the EU rules over a very wide area of governmental competences, making it rather difficult to claim that the UK remains sovereign.
  - jeremysmyth 10y ago
    that's a pretty long list that touches on nearly every level of governance This isn't even close to true. It doesn't cover: - National security - Healthcare policy and resourcing - Welfare and pensions policy - Education policy ...which, not coincidentally, are the highest budgeted functions of the UK government[1]. I should also include criminal justice and fiscal policy (seeing as the UK is non-Eurozone), and that the UK has competence over non-eu migration and asylum; this is politically important but not a large budget item on its own. There are cooperation and collaboration elements of the above (particularly in the area of common defence), but that's not to say that the policies are EU competencies. For example, freedom-of-movement rules require that pensions must be paid by the country in which they were insured, even if the individual is paid that pension in a different country. However, one country might have a pensionable age of 60 where another is 67. [1] http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.htm...
parenthephobia 10y ago
Following that to its logical conclusion would mean that EU courts can decide that Parliament isn't actually allowed to decide to invoke article 50. One might wonder why they're even trying to leave. Parliament is in fact sovereign, and always has been. EU court decisions apply in the UK exactly to the extent that the UK government permits them to. e.g. When EU courts rule that UK prisoners have to be allowed to vote in UK elections, the government ignores that. When it ascents to unpopular EU laws, it does so voluntarily, after having been involved in drafting them, something people would be wise to consider when imagining that "returning sovereignty" to the government will magically fix everything.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Following that to its logical conclusion would mean that EU courts can decide that Parliament isn't actually allowed to decide to invoke article 50. One might wonder why they're even trying to leave." The ability to succeed from a union doesn't imply 'sovereignty'. The State of Texas can legally leave the US Federation at any time. It has been established that the Province of Quebec in Canada could withdraw from the Canadian Confederation. Scotland and Catalonia could effectively exit their respective federal entities - not by any obvious legal recourse but it surely could happen. And yet, federal law in each of those regimes applies. 'Following your logic to it's conclusion' - Holyrood, 'L'Assemble National' and the State of Texas are 'sovereign' entities? Parliament is not sovereign in areas wherein it as agreed to absolve that authority. It's hard to claim otherwise - there is a EU judiciary that can overrule local laws in more areas that it cannot, certainly the bulk of the important ones.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    It's not hard, you are just making some extreme mental gymnastics to say what you want to say. If governor of texas stops following federal law, then US has federal institutions which will arrest such governor. In that sense, Texas is not soverign, because it HAS to follow US federal law. It doesn't get any choice in that matter. On the other hand, UK can just say they won't follow a certain EU law, and absolutely nothing will happen. EU won't come to arrest Theresa May, or send troops to occupy the house of commons until they agree to follow EU regulations. It's a voluntary union, with zero threat for not following regulations.
aryehof 10y ago
The EU can do what they want, including jumping up and down and yelling 'unconstitutional'. Any devolvement to Europe can be removed, just like the Queen could be - by acts of Parliament.
- ue_ 10y ago
  How could the Queen be practically removed by Parliament? Doesn't the act need royal assent, so she wouldn't go unless she wanted to? Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country.
  - aryehof 10y ago
    Royal assent is today nothing more than an allowed tradition. If the people want her gone, there is nothing she or anyone else can do about it. Parliament is sovereign. However, say Parliament did do that between elections outside of the will of the vast majority of the people, then there would surely be an uprising. The will of the people are the final arbiters of the collective actions of their representatives in Parliament. > "Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country" Democracy doesn't mean you get what you want, or that you can do whatever you want. It means accepting the will of the majority. Your right is to have your say at the next election. Why have you lost hope?
    - Daviey 10y ago
      The actual act of Royal Assent might be considered tradition... but that doesn't mean there hasn't been significant influence before the Act gets as far as being inked. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign." The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)

edblarney 10y ago

I don't know why someone would down-vote this. Here it is from the EU [1] The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'. Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy. [1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...

aryehof 10y ago
You are downvoted because you are incorrect. The UK Parliament can decide to adhere to EU law, and just as easily take that away. Parliamentary sovereignty which includes the inability to bind or restrict any future Parliament, is the foundation of UK constitutional law - http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

edblarney 10y ago

jeremysmyth 10y ago

The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Only in areas where the EU has competence, and these are explicitly enumerated in various treaties; by default, the EU has no competence, so it only has powers to legislate where those powers are explicitly agreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Aai0020 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3...

edblarney 10y ago
"The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Only in areas where the EU has competence," Yes. And that's a pretty long list that touches on nearly every level of governance. In fact - that list is in some ways more pervasive that the Canadian governments ability to intercede in Provincial affairs. Fun fact: Canada does not even have 'free trade' within it's provinces as the Federal government doesn't effectively have the ability to regulate it. Yet nobody would claim that 'Ontario' is sovereign. It would seem you've provided evidence that the EU rules over a very wide area of governmental competences, making it rather difficult to claim that the UK remains sovereign.
- jeremysmyth 10y ago
  that's a pretty long list that touches on nearly every level of governance This isn't even close to true. It doesn't cover: - National security - Healthcare policy and resourcing - Welfare and pensions policy - Education policy ...which, not coincidentally, are the highest budgeted functions of the UK government[1]. I should also include criminal justice and fiscal policy (seeing as the UK is non-Eurozone), and that the UK has competence over non-eu migration and asylum; this is politically important but not a large budget item on its own. There are cooperation and collaboration elements of the above (particularly in the area of common defence), but that's not to say that the policies are EU competencies. For example, freedom-of-movement rules require that pensions must be paid by the country in which they were insured, even if the individual is paid that pension in a different country. However, one country might have a pensionable age of 60 where another is 67. [1] http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.htm...

parenthephobia 10y ago

Following that to its logical conclusion would mean that EU courts can decide that Parliament isn't actually allowed to decide to invoke article 50. One might wonder why they're even trying to leave. Parliament is in fact sovereign, and always has been. EU court decisions apply in the UK exactly to the extent that the UK government permits them to. e.g. When EU courts rule that UK prisoners have to be allowed to vote in UK elections, the government ignores that. When it ascents to unpopular EU laws, it does so voluntarily, after having been involved in drafting them, something people would be wise to consider when imagining that "returning sovereignty" to the government will magically fix everything.

edblarney 10y ago
"Following that to its logical conclusion would mean that EU courts can decide that Parliament isn't actually allowed to decide to invoke article 50. One might wonder why they're even trying to leave." The ability to succeed from a union doesn't imply 'sovereignty'. The State of Texas can legally leave the US Federation at any time. It has been established that the Province of Quebec in Canada could withdraw from the Canadian Confederation. Scotland and Catalonia could effectively exit their respective federal entities - not by any obvious legal recourse but it surely could happen. And yet, federal law in each of those regimes applies. 'Following your logic to it's conclusion' - Holyrood, 'L'Assemble National' and the State of Texas are 'sovereign' entities? Parliament is not sovereign in areas wherein it as agreed to absolve that authority. It's hard to claim otherwise - there is a EU judiciary that can overrule local laws in more areas that it cannot, certainly the bulk of the important ones.
- gambiting 10y ago
  It's not hard, you are just making some extreme mental gymnastics to say what you want to say. If governor of texas stops following federal law, then US has federal institutions which will arrest such governor. In that sense, Texas is not soverign, because it HAS to follow US federal law. It doesn't get any choice in that matter. On the other hand, UK can just say they won't follow a certain EU law, and absolutely nothing will happen. EU won't come to arrest Theresa May, or send troops to occupy the house of commons until they agree to follow EU regulations. It's a voluntary union, with zero threat for not following regulations.

aryehof 10y ago

The EU can do what they want, including jumping up and down and yelling 'unconstitutional'. Any devolvement to Europe can be removed, just like the Queen could be - by acts of Parliament.

ue_ 10y ago
How could the Queen be practically removed by Parliament? Doesn't the act need royal assent, so she wouldn't go unless she wanted to? Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country.
- aryehof 10y ago
  Royal assent is today nothing more than an allowed tradition. If the people want her gone, there is nothing she or anyone else can do about it. Parliament is sovereign. However, say Parliament did do that between elections outside of the will of the vast majority of the people, then there would surely be an uprising. The will of the people are the final arbiters of the collective actions of their representatives in Parliament. > "Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country" Democracy doesn't mean you get what you want, or that you can do whatever you want. It means accepting the will of the majority. Your right is to have your say at the next election. Why have you lost hope?
  - Daviey 10y ago
    The actual act of Royal Assent might be considered tradition... but that doesn't mean there hasn't been significant influence before the Act gets as far as being inked. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...