Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit

parliamentary Soereignty in the UK in the inflame of BrexitPOn 23 June 2016, the UK bounteous medication held a referendum to learn whether the republic should kick in the EU. The majority citizens voted for Brexit (51.89 per centime to 48.11 per cent) with a end product of 72%, however, they thoroughly fell behind in Scottish and Northern Irish t completelyies. Be that as it may, the Government was still pass judgment to origination bind 50 of the accordance on European colligation (TEU) as soon as possible, without the express permission from fan tan. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, had promised that he would win through with the outcome, even if that closet leaving the EU (BBC, 2017).1 However, the situation was non as straightforward as presented by the Leave weightlift. The principle of parliamentary reign meant that the referendum import had no heavy binding. Therefore, the Prime Minister and political science were free to ignore the referend um result if they saw fit. Further much, some argued that the authorities had no mighty to trigger a leave yet fantan could do so, as a result of the principle parliamentary reign (Weale, 2017).2 This paper discusses the topic of parliamentary reign in the UK, tripicularly in the wake of Brexit, and briefly touches on some friendly consequences had parliamentary Sovereignty not been respected. The structure of this paper is consequently as follows First, function 1 briefly discusses the history behind parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. Then, Section 2 discusses the moth miller Case, a face where the high-pitched dally upheld parliamentary sovereignty in the wake of Brexit. Finally, Section 3 explores the European northward ( observation of Withdrawal) Act 2017, an Act of fan tan that grants the organization situation to leave the EU. 1. The Principle of Parliamentary SovereigntyThe idea of parliamentary sovereignty was conceived circa the Case of Proclamations in 16 08 (Barnett, 2017).3 This was a court decision that reduced the indi cig atomic number 18tt of Monarchs. Essentially, the courts decided that mournful forward, Kings and Queens would seduce to obtain Parliaments permission to change justices. Specifically, the Case of Proclamations showd that the King groundworknot change any part of the common law . without parliament (House of skippers, 1610).4 following(a) this, the slope Civil War occurred 16421651, where Parliamentarians fought over against Royalists for ideals such as parliamentary sovereignty. The Parliamentarians were victorious on such occasion and thus began the Glorious novelty in 1688, which established parliamentary sovereignty in England (Goldsworthy, 2010).5 Then, in 1689, parliamentary sovereignty was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Similarly to the Case of Proclamations, this invoice requires Monarchs to obtain permission from Parliament originally changing laws. Specifically, the Bill of Rights said, Suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without re deed of Parliament is illegal (Parliament of England, 1689).6In modern mean solar day Britain, Parliament consists of terce main decision making bodies the Sovereign (the monarch, i.e. the King or Queen), the House of Lords (i.e. unelected members of parliament), and the House of parking lot (i.e. elected Members of Parliament, or MPs). These three bodies miscellany the highest magnate in the UK. The f acquit that Parliament has supreme reason is k without delayn as parliamentary sovereignty. In the words of Legal commentator Albert flukey, parliamentary sovereignty gives Parliament the power to move in or unmake any law whatever (Dicey, 1915, p.3).7 The barely dividing lines to parliamentary sovereignty are those that Parliament sets itself (Bradley, 2011).8 An example of this self-enforced limit is Parliaments subordination of the UK to the EU. This came into put together in 1972, when Parliame nt signed the European Communities Act, under which the UK was compelled to follow EU law (Barber, 2011).9 Parliament too has the power to lift its voluntary limits. For example, Brexit means that Parliament leave repeal the European Communities Act, thus ending the EUs control over the UK ( coercive tap, 2017).10 It is also great to note that only Parliament asshole repeal Parliamentary acts. Essentially, the organisation and Queen cannot repeal Acts of Parliament without Parliaments permission. 23. Parliamentary sovereignty has been a significant part of umteen cases and has repeatedly been called upon during cases of richness. A quote from Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General 2005 UKHL 56 2006 1 AC 262 at para. 9 encapsulates this substance perfectly The bedrock of the British constitution is the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.2. The moth miller CaseFollowing the Brexit referendum in June 2016, Times journalist David Pannick noted that th e government could not trigger Article 50 by itself the government would keep up to first obtain permission from Parliament (Pannick, 2016).11 This was because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Specifically, Pannick noted that Parliament had agreed to the European Communities Act in 1972, and because only Parliament can chase away its own decisions, and at that placefore only Parliament can repeal the act and withdraw from the EU. He also drew management to Article 50 of the Treaty on European spousal relationship, which says, any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements (EU, 2007).12 Pannick argued that since parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional requirement, the EU would not accommodate the UKs drug sezession without parliamentary approval (Pannick, 2016).13 Theresa May was dismissive of these claims. She asserted that they were a tactic to withstand Brexit and subvert democracy (BBC, 201 7).14 She also stated that the government did not compulsion parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 (Freehills, 2016).15 Notably, Theresa May stated, It is up to the Government to trigger Article 50 and the Government alone(predicate) (BBC, 2017).16 Many disagreed with Theresa May, as they believed that drug withdrawal from the EU without Parliaments permission would be unlawful (Weale, 2017).17 Several members of the frequent felt so strongly most this that took legal march against the government. miller v Secretary of articulate for Exiting the European Union, or the miller case as it was known informally, was heard in the soaring Court of Justice. Miller argued that Parliamentary involvement was necessary because By enacting the 1972 Act, Parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred the same upon (what are now) the EU Institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone without Parliamentary consent. ( overbearing Court, 2016, p.21)18In p lain English, Millers argument was that considering Parliament surrendered power to the EU in 1972, only Parliament could take this power back (Supreme Court, 2016).19 The government disagreed with this claim. They believed that once the UK leaves the EU, the European Communities Act 1972 would simply cease to apply, because former treaties would not exist (Supreme Court, 2016 Weale, 2017).20 Furthermore, the government argued that they had the munificent privilege to override parliamentary sovereignty. The royal franchise is an old power that allows governments to make decisions without Parliament, in exceptional circumstances (Freehills, 2016).21 The government also noted a triumph that the making and unmaking of treaties is in spite of appearance the competence of the government (Supreme Court, 2017, p.84)22The case was debated in the full(prenominal) Court for several weeks until the close Court delivered its verdict on 3 November 2016. The High Court normal in favou r of Miller the government had to obtain parliamentary authority to trigger Article 50. The High Court had agreed with Millers arguments more or less the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Supreme Court, 2017).23 The court explained that because of parliamentary sovereignty, only Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act. This is because only Parliament can repeal an Act of Parliament. The High Court also explained that Article 50 would nullify several fulls of UK citizens (Supreme Court, 2017).24 These rights included the right of UK citizens to live and work freely in other EU countries, and the right to 20 long time paid holiday under the Working Time Directive 2003. Parliament put these rights in place when it passed the European Communities Act in 1972. The High Court also ruled against the governments right to use the royal prerogative (Supreme Court, 2017).25 To explain why, the High Court cited the case of Burmah crude Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord propo se 1965 AC 75, 101. This case involved use of the royal prerogative. Lord Reid, dismissed the royal prerogative as a relic of a past age (House of Lords, 1965, p.101).26 Lord Reid also explained that the royal prerogative is only available for a case not covered by statute (p.101).27 Typically, the royal prerogative is only for situations such as declaring war, dissolving parliament and governing colonies (Wade, 1961).28 So, in Millers case, the High Court explained that a royal prerogative was inappropriate for triggering Brexit. Therefore, the government did not imbibe the power to trigger Article 50 without Parliaments approval.The government was unhappy with the High Courts decision and chose to appeal it, and as a result the case went to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the governments appeal, citing the same designer as the High Court (Supreme Court, 2017).29 Essentially, the court explained, the government in 1972 mandatory Parliaments approval to sign the 1972 Accession Treaty. This meant that present-day government also desireed Parliaments approval to repeal this treaty (Supreme Court, 2017).30 Of course, those in the Leave camp were outraged with the High Courts decision. kindred Theresa May, they believed that Parliament was attempting to preclude the progression of Brexit. A Ukip donor accused the High Court of declaring war on British democracy (Maguire, 2016).31 In reality, however, this was not the case the High Court was merely upholding the British constitution as intended, by honouring the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017)32 and following the Rule of Law.Importance of the Rule of Law.On 29 borderland 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Councilto notify the European Council of the united Kingdoms intention to leave theEuropean Unit and the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty. Brexit is nolonger a hypothetical question. It is a concrete fact it is happening. An issue that has beenbrought to the front is the belief that the Government has the power, andright, to act on Brexit without Parliaments involvement. This is even moretroubling as the very constitution is built upon Parliamentary sovereignty. Theissue of human rights comes up as it can be dangerous, in a country where thelegislature is mostly under the control of the executive postor, to leave it solely up toa sovereign Parliament withan absent constitution. If the Parliament can be avoided altogether, this can lead to an evenworse situation overall and so highlights how classic it was for theSupreme Court in Miller tostand up for and defend the power of Parliament over the executive.Brexit is one of the mostinfluential and far-reaching changes to the internationalistic social and politicallandscapes today. Brexit will shape Britain, and the international community,for years to come. It is for this reason that it is undeniable that this passageshould be founded in the rule of la w. To comprehend the magnificence of the ruleof law we must(prenominal) give it a clear definition. A known definition is that ofLord Bingham that all persons and authorities in the State, whether publicor private, should be bound by and be entitled to the benefit of all laws publically made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publiclyadministered in the courts. The Venice Commission has identified the following8 components of the rule of law (1) Accessibility of the law (that it beintelligible, clear and predictable) (2) Questions of legal right should benormally decided by law and not discretion (3) Equality before the law (4)Power must be exercised lawfully, clean and reasonably (5) Human rights mustbe protected (6) Means must be provided to resolve disputes without undue costor delay (7) Trials must be fair, and (8) Compliance by the state with itsobligations in international law as well as in national law. The importance ofthe rule of law is prize in multiple inte rnational documents. For example,the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights notes the importance of therule of law in protecting human rights. The Treaty on European Union alsocouples the rule of law and respect for human rights. It is this human rightselement that the remained of this short essay will focus on. Brexit will reformthe social landscape of Britain and Europe. It is of paramount importance thatthe rule of law is respected in this reformation to ensure that fundamentalrights, particularly those of minorities and vulnerable individuals, go byto be respected. This is curiously true given that there has been much debateas to whether the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia and racism. Researchhas shown that there was an increase in halt for far-right groups during theBrexit campaign and following the murder of Jo Cox. There has also been analleged escalation in hate crime targeting migrant communities as well anincrease in anti-immigration rhetoric. The Brexit v ote, coupled with Trump, andthe compound of the far-right, summons fears surrounding the polarization ofpolitics and the creeping rise of extremism. With this in mind, it is quitechilling to consider Lord Binghams thoughts on a schema which is not foundedon the rule of law The hallmark of a regime which flouts the rule of law are,alas, all too familiar the midnight concussion on the door, the jerkydisappearance, the show trial, the subjection of prisoners to geneticexperiments, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and theconcentration camp, the gas chamber, the practice of genocide and ethniccleansing, the waging of aggressive wars. In a time when internationalpolitics is becoming increasingly unclear and strained and communities arefraught with increased fear and racial tensions, now more than ever, the ruleof law and the importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty must be respected. Asnoted by the Prime Minister, the task before the British nation is momentousbut it shou ld not be insurmountable. Britain post-Brexit has an unclear futureand an undefined path. By adhering to the rule of law, the certainty, stabilityand protection that it provides will ensure that this difficult task isnegotiated with the utmost respect for all peoples and their inalienable humanrights.3. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017Given that the Supreme Court had dismissed the governments appeal, the government now needed Parliaments approval to trigger Article 50. In order to receive this approval, the government introduced a new bill in Parliament. This bill was called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.Essentially, this bill would give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50. However, Parliament had the power to reject the bill if it felt appropriate. This was again because of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).33 Despite that most voters voted Leave in the referendum, this result was not legally binding and Parliament co uld ignore the referendum result. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the last-ditch power rests with Parliament, not the public nor the results of referendums. The public only have the power to elect MPs, and once elected, MPs can go against the wishes of their constituents and make their own decisions if they necessitate to. MPs can even go against a referendum result, despite that this might cause great anger with the British public. As Dicey stated, the electors can in the long run always enforce their will (Dicey, 1915).34 However, all three decision making bodies of Parliament the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons approved the Notification of Withdrawal Act (BBC, 2017).35 The Queen gave the final green flag on 16 March 2017. This gave the Prime Minister the power trigger to Article 50 and inform the EU of the UKs withdrawal. The government officially triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, when a UK envoy delivered a letter of withdrawal t o the President of the European Council (BBC, 2017).36 The issue of parliamentary sovereignty then took a back seat as the UK began exit negotiations with the EU. Of the 170,000statutory instruments that have been sent to Parliament in the last 65 years,only seventeen have been rejected, and any substantive debate over individualinstruments is a lofty occurrence. Responsibility has been delegated for ordinance both to the government and the European Union. For this reason,possibly up to sixty per cent of UK law may be derived from EU law in some way.Furthermore, for many years, legislative and technical expertise in thepertinent areas have again been delegated to Brussels. This leaves domesticcivil servants under prepared to handle the of important decisions that willneed to be made in the coming years. David Allen Greens analysis is difficultto refute under the cloak of the referendum result there will be a power grabby Whitehall from Westminster. Those rejoicing at taking back co ntrol shouldbe careful what they wish for. The executive is, as usual, wanting(p) to takecontrol away from Parliament.On manyoccasions, it has been asserted that because the people have spoken throughthe referendum, it gives the executive the right to motor onward without theconsent of Parliament. On many occasions, it has been asserted that because thepeople have spoken through the referendum, it gives the executive the rightto push onward without the consent of Parliament. Doesthis mean that the claims of direct democracy, in the form of the referendum,trump the claims of Parliamentary representative democracy, with theparadoxical effect of giving more power to the executive? The greater part have affirmedthat referenda are in and of themselves a product of Parliamentary authority and must accordingly rely on thestatute which enables them. The 2015 EU referendum Act only called for the referendumto take place, without establishing how to arise it or the potentialconsequences. W here,as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a change in thelaw of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change inthe law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits,namely through Parliamentary legislation.The existent political importance of a referendum is not subverted however. What isdoes assert is the basic dogma that, in a democracy, the people can speakthrough their representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless,direct democracy cannot be operationalised by giving undiluted power to theexecutive.4. Conclusion This paper has discussed parliamentary sovereignty in the UK in the wake ofBrexit. First, Section 1 introduced the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. This sectionexplained that parliamentary sovereignty goes back to the 17th century, whenthe courts first enshrined the principle in the Bill of Rights. The sectionalso drew attention to the rule that only Parliament can undo Acts of Parliament.I then discussed the Miller case in Section 2. In this case, members of the public argued that the government infallible Parliaments approval to leave the EU. The courts decided in favour ofMillers side that explained that Parliament was needed to trigger to Article50 due to parliamentary sovereignty. The decision was polemic because some peoplesaw it as an attempt to subvert the referendum result. Finally, Section 3discussed the European Union Act 2017. This act that demo the principleof parliamentary sovereignty. The government essentially asked Parliament forpermission to trigger Article 50, and Parliament agreed by passing the act. In conclusion, the principle of parliamentarysovereignty was well-tried inthe wake of Brexit. Ultimately however, courts respected the principle and gave Parliament the ultimate power over whether Britain shouldleave the EU. However, the future is still uncertain, as no-one yet knows whatBrexit will look like. Perhaps a future Parliament will reverse the Brexitdecision. After all, parliamentary sovereignty gives future Parliaments theright to reverse the decisions of previous Parliaments. What need to be addressed is the potential consequneces that thereferendum may have on Palimentary sovernety and represesentitivedemocracy throughout the UK. For thisreason, Parliment needs to continue to be a profound part of the forge despiteany predetermined preferences from the Government itself. Parliamentary sovereignty must remain intact as, for the many reasons stated, it is anintegral part of the fall in Kingdomsconstitution, because its deliberate and representative functions and ability to holdthe executive to account are defining features of the United Kingdoms enduringconstitution.5. ReferencesBarber, N.W., 2011. Thefuture of Parliamentary sovereignty. outside(a) Journal of ecesisal Law, 9(1), pp.144154.Barnett, H., 2017. Constitutional and administrative law,Taylor & Francis.BBC, 2017. BBC News website. unattached athttp//w ww.bbc.com/news Accessed July 14, 2017.Bradley, A., 2011. The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm or way? The Changing Constitution, 23, pp.5456.Dicey, A.V., 1915. access to the Study of the Law ofthe Constitution 8th ed., Liberty Classics.EU, 2007. Treaty on European Union,Freehills, H.S., 2016. Judicial review litigation over the pass up constitutional make for triggering Article 50 TEU. Lexology.Available athttp//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f43e102f-ea09-4449-b781-a35ecfe628feAccessed July 13, 2017.Goldsworthy, J., 2010. Parliamentary sovereigntycontemporary debates, Cambridge University invite.House of Lords, 1965. Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd vLord guidance AC 75,House of Lords, 1610. Proclamations, Case of 1610 EWHCKB J22, Available at http//www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html.Maguire, P., 2016. take our sovereignty or declaring waron democracy disconnected view on judges ruling. The Guardian. Available athttps//www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/ 06/brexit-this-is-what-sovereignty-looks-likeimg-1Accessed July 13, 2017.Pannick, D., 2016. Why giving notice of withdrawal from theEU requires act of parliament. The Times. Available athttps//www.thetimes.co.uk/ obligate/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3.Parliament of England, 1689. English Bill of Rights,Supreme Court, 2016. Miller v. Secretary of State forExiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others(The Expat Interveners), Available athttp//www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/139459-UKSC-2016-0196-Skeleton-for-Expat-Interveners-final-written-case-2.pdf.Supreme Court, 2017. Miller v Secretary of State forExiting the European Union, London. Available athttps//www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf.Wade, W., 1961. Administrative Law, London OxfordUniversity fight down.Weale, A., 2017. The Democratic duty to Oppose Brexit. The policy-making quarterly, 88(2), pp.170181.1 BBC2 Albert Weale, The Democratic work to Oppose Brexit (2017) The semipolitical Quarterly 1773 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and administrative law (Taylor & Francis 2017)4 House of Lords, Case of 1610 EWHC KB J225 Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary sovereignty contemporary debates (Cambridge University Press 2010)6 Parliament of England, English Bill of Rights7 Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915)8 Anthony Bradley, The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm or Substance? (2011) The Changing Constitution 549 Nicholas Barber, The futurity of Parliamentary sovereignty (2011) International Journal of Constitutional Law 14910 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union11 David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament12 EU, Treaty on European Union13 David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament14 BBC15 Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the co rrect constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU16 BBC17 Albert Weale, The Democratic responsibility to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 18018 Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The Expat Interveners) 2119 Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The Expat Interveners)20 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 18021 Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU22 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8423 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8424 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8425 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8526 House of L ords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 10127 House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 10128 William Wade, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press 1961)29 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union30 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union31 Patrick Maguire, Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy split view on judges ruling32 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 17433 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 17434 Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915)35 BBC36 BBCParliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of BrexitParliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of BrexitPOn 23 June 2016, the UK government held a referendum to decide whether the country should leave the EU. The majority citizens voted for Brexit (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) with a turnout of 72%, however, they thoroughly fell behind in Scottish and Northern Irish tallies. Be that as it may, the Government was still expected to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as soon as possible, without the express permission from Parliament. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, had promised that he would follow through with the outcome, even if that meant leaving the EU (BBC, 2017).1 However, the situation was not as straightforward as presented by the Leave campaign. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty meant that the referendum result had no legal binding. Therefore, the Prime Minister and government were free to ignore the referendum result if they saw fit. Furthermore, some argued that the government had no right to trigger a leave only Parliament could do so, as a result of the principle parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).2 This paper discusses the topic of parliamen tary sovereignty in the UK, particularly in the wake of Brexit, and briefly touches on some social consequences had Parliamentary Sovereignty not been respected. The structure of this paper is therefore as follows First, Section 1 briefly discusses the history behind parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. Then, Section 2 discusses the Miller Case, a case where the High Court upheld parliamentary sovereignty in the wake of Brexit. Finally, Section 3 explores the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, an Act of Parliament that grants the government power to leave the EU. 1. The Principle of Parliamentary SovereigntyThe idea of parliamentary sovereignty was conceived circa the Case of Proclamations in 1608 (Barnett, 2017).3 This was a court decision that reduced the power of Monarchs. Essentially, the courts decided that moving forward, Kings and Queens would have to obtain Parliaments permission to change laws. Specifically, the Case of Proclamations stated that the King cannot change any part of the common law . without parliament (House of Lords, 1610).4 Following this, the English Civil War occurred 16421651, where Parliamentarians fought against Royalists for ideals such as parliamentary sovereignty. The Parliamentarians were victorious on such occasion and thus began the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which established parliamentary sovereignty in England (Goldsworthy, 2010).5 Then, in 1689, parliamentary sovereignty was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Similarly to the Case of Proclamations, this bill requires Monarchs to obtain permission from Parliament before changing laws. Specifically, the Bill of Rights said, Suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal (Parliament of England, 1689).6In modern day Britain, Parliament consists of three main decision making bodies the Sovereign (the monarch, i.e. the King or Queen), the House of Lords (i.e. unelected members of parliament), and the House of Commons (i.e. elected Members of Parliament, or MPs). These three bodies form the highest power in the UK. The fact that Parliament has supreme power is known as parliamentary sovereignty. In the words of Legal commentator Albert Dicey, parliamentary sovereignty gives Parliament the power to make or unmake any law whatever (Dicey, 1915, p.3).7 The only limits to parliamentary sovereignty are those that Parliament sets itself (Bradley, 2011).8 An example of this self-enforced limit is Parliaments subordination of the UK to the EU. This came into effect in 1972, when Parliament signed the European Communities Act, under which the UK was compelled to follow EU law (Barber, 2011).9 Parliament also has the power to lift its self-imposed limits. For example, Brexit means that Parliament will repeal the European Communities Act, thus ending the EUs control over the UK (Supreme Court, 2017).10 It is also important to note that only Parliament can repeal Parliamentary acts. Essentia lly, the government and Queen cannot repeal Acts of Parliament without Parliaments permission. 23. Parliamentary sovereignty has been a significant part of many cases and has repeatedly been called upon during cases of importance. A quote from Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General 2005 UKHL 56 2006 1 AC 262 at para. 9 encapsulates this significance perfectly The bedrock of the British constitution is the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.2. The Miller CaseFollowing the Brexit referendum in June 2016, Times journalist David Pannick noted that the government could not trigger Article 50 by itself the government would have to first obtain permission from Parliament (Pannick, 2016).11 This was because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Specifically, Pannick noted that Parliament had agreed to the European Communities Act in 1972, and because only Parliament can reverse its own decisions, and therefore only Parliament can repeal the act and withdraw f rom the EU. He also drew attention to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which says, any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements (EU, 2007).12 Pannick argued that since parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional requirement, the EU would not accept the UKs withdrawal without parliamentary approval (Pannick, 2016).13 Theresa May was dismissive of these claims. She asserted that they were a tactic to delay Brexit and subvert democracy (BBC, 2017).14 She also stated that the government did not need parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 (Freehills, 2016).15 Notably, Theresa May stated, It is up to the Government to trigger Article 50 and the Government alone (BBC, 2017).16 Many disagreed with Theresa May, as they believed that withdrawal from the EU without Parliaments permission would be unlawful (Weale, 2017).17 Several members of the public felt so strongly about this that took legal action against the government. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, or the Miller case as it was known informally, was heard in the High Court of Justice. Miller argued that Parliamentary involvement was necessary because By enacting the 1972 Act, Parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred the same upon (what are now) the EU Institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone without Parliamentary consent. (Supreme Court, 2016, p.21)18In plain English, Millers argument was that considering Parliament surrendered power to the EU in 1972, only Parliament could take this power back (Supreme Court, 2016).19 The government disagreed with this claim. They believed that once the UK leaves the EU, the European Communities Act 1972 would simply cease to apply, because former treaties would not exist (Supreme Court, 2016 Weale, 2017).20 Furthermore, the government argued that they had the royal prerogative to override parliamentary sovereignty. The royal pr erogative is an old power that allows governments to make decisions without Parliament, in exceptional circumstances (Freehills, 2016).21 The government also noted a rule that the making and unmaking of treaties is within the competence of the government (Supreme Court, 2017, p.84)22The case was debated in the High Court for several weeks until the High Court delivered its verdict on 3 November 2016. The High Court ruled in favour of Miller the government had to obtain parliamentary authority to trigger Article 50. The High Court had agreed with Millers arguments about the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Supreme Court, 2017).23 The court explained that because of parliamentary sovereignty, only Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act. This is because only Parliament can repeal an Act of Parliament. The High Court also explained that Article 50 would nullify several rights of UK citizens (Supreme Court, 2017).24 These rights included the right of UK citizens to live and work freely in other EU countries, and the right to 20 days paid holiday under the Working Time Directive 2003. Parliament put these rights in place when it passed the European Communities Act in 1972. The High Court also ruled against the governments right to use the royal prerogative (Supreme Court, 2017).25 To explain why, the High Court cited the case of Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate 1965 AC 75, 101. This case involved use of the royal prerogative. Lord Reid, dismissed the royal prerogative as a relic of a past age (House of Lords, 1965, p.101).26 Lord Reid also explained that the royal prerogative is only available for a case not covered by statute (p.101).27 Typically, the royal prerogative is only for situations such as declaring war, dissolving parliament and governing colonies (Wade, 1961).28 So, in Millers case, the High Court explained that a royal prerogative was inappropriate for triggering Brexit. Therefore, the government did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without Parliaments approval.The government was unhappy with the High Courts decision and chose to appeal it, and as a result the case went to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the governments appeal, citing the same reason as the High Court (Supreme Court, 2017).29 Essentially, the court explained, the government in 1972 needed Parliaments approval to sign the 1972 Accession Treaty. This meant that present-day government also needed Parliaments approval to repeal this treaty (Supreme Court, 2017).30 Of course, those in the Leave camp were outraged with the High Courts decision. Like Theresa May, they believed that Parliament was attempting to obstruct the progression of Brexit. A Ukip donor accused the High Court of declaring war on British democracy (Maguire, 2016).31 In reality, however, this was not the case the High Court was merely upholding the British constitution as intended, by honouring the principle of parliamentary so vereignty (Weale, 2017)32 and following the Rule of Law.Importance of the Rule of Law.On 29March 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Councilto notify the European Council of the United Kingdoms intention to leave theEuropean Unit and the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty. Brexit is nolonger a hypothetical question. It is a concrete fact it is happening. An issue that has beenbrought to the front is the belief that the Government has the power, andright, to act on Brexit without Parliaments involvement. This is even moretroubling as the very constitution is built upon Parliamentary sovereignty. Theissue of human rights comes up as it can be dangerous, in a country where thelegislature is mostly under the control of the executive, to leave it solely up toa sovereign Parliament withan absent constitution. If the Parliament can be avoided altogether, this can lead to an evenworse situation overall and so highlights how important it was for theSupreme Co urt in Miller tostand up for and defend the power of Parliament over the executive.Brexit is one of the mostinfluential and far-reaching changes to the international social and politicallandscapes today. Brexit will shape Britain, and the international community,for years to come. It is for this reason that it is undeniable that this processshould be founded in the rule of law. To comprehend the importance of the ruleof law we must give it a clear definition. A well-known definition is that ofLord Bingham that all persons and authorities in the State, whether publicor private, should be bound by and be entitled to the benefit of all lawspublicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publiclyadministered in the courts. The Venice Commission has identified the following8 components of the rule of law (1) Accessibility of the law (that it beintelligible, clear and predictable) (2) Questions of legal right should benormally decided by law and not discretion (3) Equality befo re the law (4)Power must be exercised lawfully, fairly and reasonably (5) Human rights mustbe protected (6) Means must be provided to resolve disputes without undue costor delay (7) Trials must be fair, and (8) Compliance by the state with itsobligations in international law as well as in national law. The importance ofthe rule of law is recognised in multiple international documents. For example,the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights notes the importance of therule of law in protecting human rights. The Treaty on European Union alsocouples the rule of law and respect for human rights. It is this human rightselement that the remained of this short essay will focus on. Brexit will reformthe social landscape of Britain and Europe. It is of paramount importance thatthe rule of law is respected in this reformation to ensure that fundamentalrights, particularly those of minorities and vulnerable individuals, continueto be respected. This is especially true given that there ha s been much debateas to whether the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia and racism. Researchhas shown that there was an increase in support for far-right groups during theBrexit campaign and following the murder of Jo Cox. There has also been analleged escalation in hate crime targeting migrant communities as well anincrease in anti-immigration rhetoric. The Brexit vote, coupled with Trump, andthe rise of the far-right, summons fears surrounding the polarization ofpolitics and the creeping rise of extremism. With this in mind, it is quitechilling to consider Lord Binghams thoughts on a system which is not foundedon the rule of law The hallmark of a regime which flouts the rule of law are,alas, all too familiar the midnight knock on the door, the suddendisappearance, the show trial, the subjection of prisoners to geneticexperiments, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and theconcentration camp, the gas chamber, the practice of genocide and ethniccleansing, the waging of aggressive wars. In a time when internationalpolitics is becoming increasingly unclear and strained and communities arefraught with increased fear and racial tensions, now more than ever, the ruleof law and the importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty must be respected. Asnoted by the Prime Minister, the task before the British nation is momentousbut it should not be insurmountable. Britain post-Brexit has an unclear futureand an undefined path. By adhering to the rule of law, the certainty, stabilityand protection that it provides will ensure that this difficult task isnegotiated with the utmost respect for all peoples and their inalienable humanrights.3. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017Given that the Supreme Court had dismissed the governments appeal, the government now needed Parliaments approval to trigger Article 50. In order to receive this approval, the government introduced a new bill in Parliament. This bill was called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.Essentially, this bill would give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50. However, Parliament had the power to reject the bill if it felt appropriate. This was again because of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).33 Despite that most voters voted Leave in the referendum, this result was not legally binding and Parliament could ignore the referendum result. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the ultimate power rests with Parliament, not the public nor the results of referendums. The public only have the power to elect MPs, and once elected, MPs can go against the wishes of their constituents and make their own decisions if they want to. MPs can even go against a referendum result, despite that this might cause great anger with the British public. As Dicey stated, the electors can in the long run always enforce their will (Dicey, 1915).34 However, all three decision making bodies of Parliament the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons approved the Notification of Withdrawal Act (BBC, 2017).35 The Queen gave the final green flag on 16 March 2017. This gave the Prime Minister the power trigger to Article 50 and inform the EU of the UKs withdrawal. The government officially triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, when a UK envoy delivered a letter of withdrawal to the President of the European Council (BBC, 2017).36 The issue of parliamentary sovereignty then took a back seat as the UK began exit negotiations with the EU. Of the 170,000statutory instruments that have been sent to Parliament in the last 65 years,only seventeen have been rejected, and any substantive debate over individualinstruments is a rare occurrence. Responsibility has been delegated forregulation both to the government and the European Union. For this reason,possibly up to sixty per cent of UK law may be derived from EU law in some way.Furthermore, for many years, legislative and technical expertise in thepertinent areas have ag ain been delegated to Brussels. This leaves domesticcivil servants under prepared to handle the of important decisions that willneed to be made in the coming years. David Allen Greens analysis is difficultto refute under the cloak of the referendum result there will be a power grabby Whitehall from Westminster. Those rejoicing at taking back control shouldbe careful what they wish for. The executive is, as usual, wanting to takecontrol away from Parliament.On manyoccasions, it has been asserted that because the people have spoken throughthe referendum, it gives the executive the right to push onward without theconsent of Parliament. On many occasions, it has been asserted that because thepeople have spoken through the referendum, it gives the executive the rightto push onward without the consent of Parliament. Doesthis mean that the claims of direct democracy, in the form of the referendum,trump the claims of Parliamentary representative democracy, with theparadoxical effect of givi ng more power to the executive? The greater part have affirmedthat referenda are in and of themselves a product of Parliamentary authority and must accordingly rely on thestatute which enables them. The 2015 EU referendum Act only called for the referendumto take place, without establishing how to approach it or the potentialconsequences. Where,as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a change in thelaw of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change inthe law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits,namely through Parliamentary legislation.Theactual political importance of a referendum is not subverted however. What isdoes assert is the basic dogma that, in a democracy, the people can speakthrough their representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless,direct democracy cannot be operationalised by giving undiluted power to theexecutive.4. Conclusion This paper has discussed parliamentary sovereignty in the UK in the wa ke ofBrexit. First, Section 1 introduced the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. This sectionexplained that parliamentary sovereignty goes back to the 17th century, whenthe courts first enshrined the principle in the Bill of Rights. The sectionalso drew attention to the rule that only Parliament can undo Acts of Parliament.I then discussed the Miller case in Section 2. In this case, members of the public argued that the governmentrequired Parliaments approval to leave the EU. The courts decided in favour ofMillers side that explained that Parliament was needed to trigger to Article50 due to parliamentary sovereignty. The decision was controversial because some peoplesaw it as an attempt to subvert the referendum result. Finally, Section 3discussed the European Union Act 2017. This act that demonstrated the principleof parliamentary sovereignty. The government essentially asked Parliament forpermission to trigger Article 50, and Parliament agreed by passing the act. In co nclusion, the principle of parliamentarysovereignty was tested inthe wake of Brexit. Ultimately however, courts respected the principle and gave Parliament the ultimate power over whether Britain shouldleave the EU. However, the future is still uncertain, as no-one yet knows whatBrexit will look like. Perhaps a future Parliament will reverse the Brexitdecision. After all, parliamentary sovereignty gives future Parliaments theright to reverse the decisions of previous Parliaments. What needs to be addressed is the potential consequneces that thereferendum may have on Palimentary sovernety and represesentitivedemocracy throughout the UK. For thisreason, Parliment needs to continue to be a central part of the process despiteany predetermined preferences from the Government itself. Parliamentary sovereignty must remain intact as, for the many reasons stated, it is anintegral part of the United Kingdomsconstitution, because its deliberate and representative functions and ability to holdt he executive to account are defining features of the United Kingdoms enduringconstitution.5. ReferencesBarber, N.W., 2011. Theafterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty. International Journal ofConstitutional Law, 9(1), pp.144154.Barnett, H., 2017. Constitutional and administrative law,Taylor & Francis.BBC, 2017. BBC News website. Available athttp//www.bbc.com/news Accessed July 14, 2017.Bradley, A., 2011. The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm orSubstance? The Changing Constitution, 23, pp.5456.Dicey, A.V., 1915. Introduction to the Study of the Law ofthe Constitution 8th ed., Liberty Classics.EU, 2007. Treaty on European Union,Freehills, H.S., 2016. Judicial review litigation over thecorrect constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU. Lexology.Available athttp//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f43e102f-ea09-4449-b781-a35ecfe628feAccessed July 13, 2017.Goldsworthy, J., 2010. Parliamentary sovereigntycontemporary debates, Cambridge University Press.House of Lords, 1965. Burma h Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd vLord Advocate AC 75,House of Lords, 1610. Proclamations, Case of 1610 EWHCKB J22, Available at http//www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html.Maguire, P., 2016. Seizing our sovereignty or declaring waron democracy split view on judges ruling. The Guardian. Available athttps//www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/brexit-this-is-what-sovereignty-looks-likeimg-1Accessed July 13, 2017.Pannick, D., 2016. Why giving notice of withdrawal from theEU requires act of parliament. The Times. Available athttps//www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3.Parliament of England, 1689. English Bill of Rights,Supreme Court, 2016. Miller v. Secretary of State forExiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others(The Expat Interveners), Available athttp//www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/139459-UKSC-2016-0196-Skeleton-for-Expat-Interveners-final-written-case-2.pdf.Supreme Court, 2017. Miller v Secretary of S tate forExiting the European Union, London. Available athttps//www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf.Wade, W., 1961. Administrative Law, London OxfordUniversity Press.Weale, A., 2017. The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit. ThePolitical Quarterly, 88(2), pp.170181.1 BBC2 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 1773 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and administrative law (Taylor & Francis 2017)4 House of Lords, Case of 1610 EWHC KB J225 Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary sovereignty contemporary debates (Cambridge University Press 2010)6 Parliament of England, English Bill of Rights7 Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915)8 Anthony Bradley, The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm or Substance? (2011) The Changing Constitution 549 Nicholas Barber, The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty (2011) International Journal of Constitutional Law 14910 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union11 David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament12 EU, Treaty on European Union13 David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament14 BBC15 Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU16 BBC17 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 18018 Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The Expat Interveners) 2119 Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The Expat Interveners)20 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 18021 Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU22 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8423 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8424 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8425 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 8526 House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 10127 House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 10128 William Wade, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press 1961)29 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union30 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union31 Patrick Maguire, Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy split view on judges ruling32 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 17433 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The Political Quarterly 17434 Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Stud y of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915)35 BBC36 BBC