Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Are 8850 Form Legislation

Instructions and Help about Are 8850 Form Legislation

Hey there guys today's topic is parliamentary sovereignty it's a really popular topic in both course works and exams as an essay question in particular we're going to focus on to what extent can Parliament still be thought of as sovereign and we'll cover the topic generally but we'll try and keep that focus in mind all right let's get started so the first thing that we need to do is consider the concept of sovereignty and I think for this purpose there are two types of sovereignty the first of these is political sovereignty which is being seen as held by the people and legal sovereignty which is the focus of this video and this has been seen as held by Parliament so a parliamentary sovereignty to give an example of the difference between the two in the late 1980s the conservative party introduced something called the poll tax and they did this through an act of Parliament so it was all perfectly legal the problem was that the poll tax was incredibly unpopular led to violent protests on the street and was essentially unenforceable and Ellora ventually got repealed and the policy was abandoned and it did lead to the end of Margaret Thatcher's political career and I think that what we can see from this is that while Parliament can pass laws the ultimate final check on the elected body is by the people itself and this is something that we can bear in mind as we go through the video now the best place to start with a definition of parliamentary sovereignty is the classical theorist av dicey who gives three key definitions that we'll look at in detail firstly Parliament can do whatever it likes in terms of the laws that it passes secondly a parliament cannot be bound by its predecessor nor bind its successor so the 2016 parliament cannot have been bound by the 2015 Parliament and nor can it bind the future 2017 Parliament either thirdly no one can question an active Parliament in terms of its validity so firstly let's think about this unlimited lawmaking power Saraiva Jennings famously said in a quote that Parliament could ban smoking on the streets of Paris and we make a man into a woman now obviously this would be completely unenforceable but the idea it comes back to the point that I've made firstly that Parliament can legislate on literally anything it decides to so in the continental shelf Act 1964 the UK defined its own borders and in the war damages act 1965 Parliament made an act an act that and effectively worked retrospectively so applied to something that has happened in the past and normally in legal terms in terms of the rule of law this wouldn't be allowed but it just goes to show the sovereignty of parliament and now obviously this has to be balanced against political sovereignty so Sir Laurence Stevens once said that and Parliament could legislate to kill all blue-eyed babies but obviously like the poll tax this would be unenforceable and so we have to come back to this idea of political sovereignty and Parliament can only really do something where the people would at least be accepting of it or tolerant of it secondly Parliament cannot bind future Parliament's and this leads us to the concept of implied repeal so in Vauxhall estates limited in liverpool corporation there was a contradiction between a 1919 act and a 1925 active parliament and the courts decided that the 1925 act should be the one that applies so the later act of parliament is given precedent over the earlier one and that's something that we can remember but we'll look at a potential challenge to that concept of implied repeal later on when we look at a you law independence also has a fracture as well about whether that could be repealed and whether that is act as a binding on future parliaments so the statute of Westminster 1931 gave independence to a number of countries like South Africa and the question was well would a future Parliament really be able to stop South Africa from being independent the idea being that once you've given South Africa that right cannot really be taken away and this came up in the 1960s 1970s when Rhodesia independently declared independence without an active Parliament from the UK and this was questioned in the British courts and the British Court did uphold the idea that Britain had sovereignty over Rhodesia or Zimbabwe as it's known today and but obviously in terms of the reality on the ground Rhodesia continued to act as its own independent country and so that could be seen as the Rhodesian people exercising their own political sovereignty independent of the UK the active union with Ireland 1800 is another good example this sought to bind Ireland to the United Kingdom for forever but in 1949 the Ireland Act passed and this recognized the independence of the Republic of Ireland and so we can see there that the doctrine of implied repeal did work because the later act repealed the earlier act now HL a heart is a another theorist and he has the idea that Parliament should be able to bind its successes because if it wasn't able to then it wouldn't really be seen as all-powerful and this is an interesting concept and one that will come back to you later thirdly Acts of Parliament are unquestionable Lord Reid in picking has talked about this and said that while in the past it may have been seen that acts could be questioned and since the Glorious Revolution in 1688 as it's called and this is no longer really the case but as we talked about earlier there are other constraints so Chief Justice coke in dr. Bonhams case talked about concepts of morality whether there's a natural law or Christian principles which the country is supposedly