Precisely of specific acts which people believe may

Precisely 133 years ago, A.V. Dicey described Parliament to possess complete power over lawmaking in the UK,  “In theory, Parliament has total power.  It is sovereign.”.  In this article, Dicey goes into detail about Parliament’s unlimited control over the law, and the unfairness of the power that Parliament has. Dicey viewed Parliament to be the supreme lawmaker in the UK as they have the right to regulate the law as much as they wish and due to this, the supremacy of legislation means that no other constitutional body, such as the courts can question Parliament’s power. This directly related to Parliament’s Sovereignty in the UK as they do not undergo any legal limitation when making or unmaking any laws. Throughout this essay, I will be going into detail on the extent of Dicey’s claims on the Parliament continue remain accurate after limitations of specific acts which people believe may hinder Parliament’s Sovereignty over lawmaking in the UK.The topic of A.V. Dicey has come up in recent cases due to the controversial factors used to back up his statement about lawmaking in the UK. Due to the supremacy of Parliament’s power in terms of legislation, Dicey’s view is that no other constitutional body such as courts or judges has right to question parliament’s power. Alison Young, a professor of Law at the University of Oxford stated that “If courts override legislation, Parliament is no longer able to effective participate in constitutional exchanges. Its voice is overridden. In a similar manner, if the legislature empowers the executive to ignore judicial determinations, courts are unable to perform their constitutional role.”. This statement by Professor Young explains that if power of lawmaking in the UK was given to the courts then Parliament’s voice would not be heard. She also gives an example of how this may stop Parliament from fulfilling their constitutional role if they do not possess the power of controlling all lawmaking in the UK. This will stop Parliament from fulfilling their roles in the UK’s government as the separation of powers will be directly affected.Some say that Dicey’s views are outdated an incorrect due to present day limitations which were not present at the time of publication of the article. Firstly, The European Communities Act 1972. The ECA was an act past which gave the UK direct entry into the European Union with the condition of EU law being applied in the UK over the national law. The question here is, Did UK’s entry into the EU hinders Parliament’s Sovereignty in the UK? After the EU granted entry into the UK on joining the European Union, the UK’s Parliament, alongside every other member state of the European Union must abide by EU Law which was articulated in  Costa v ENEL “the member States have limited their sovereign rights, and albeit within limited fields, have created a body of law which binds both nationals and themselves”. Using this case about the clash of EC Law and EU Law, the answer was clear that EU Law does overrule any legislation passed by the member states”. This questions the accuracy of Dicey’s statements in modern-day legislation as Parliament must abide by EU Law over national Law in the UK. In relation to the question about the accuracy of Dicey’s statement, it is clear that Parliament’s Power over legislation in the UK is limited after the entrance of the UK into the European Union. The Accuracy of Dicey’s statement has also been challenged by Humans Right Act 1998, however, this act has not hindered Parliaments Supremacy over law enforcement in the UK, this is due to two reasons. Firstly, under section 3 of the Humans Right Act 1998, it states “So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.” In simple terms, the courts have to use the convention right as a guideline to interpret statutes. When Parliament enacts a statute, they have an intention for enacting it, For example, the Equality Act 2010 which was passed for a specific reason. This is another example that proves Parliament are in control of any acts passes and can control the behaviour of everyone. Courts can interpret these acts however they like and because the Human Rights Act 1998 is the UK’s version of the original European Convention on Human Rights. Due to this reason, Parliament remains sovereign.Dicey’s third point states that Parliament states that Parliament can not bind it successors to any form of legislation, this means that all laws are subject to chance and that no law is set in stone. This means that any Act of Parliament can be changed by another Act of Parliament, granting unlimited power. In the Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Dicey describes the UK’s constitution as “the most flexible polity in existence”. In this quote, Dicey is referring to the UK’s constitution as flexible as Parliament have the ability to change laws and pass them on any subject they please. This further proves the accuracy of Dicey’s reasoning on why Parliament was  sovereign the UK 133 years ago, and still has remained sovereign today. In the Judgement of Miller it states “The legislative power of the Crown is today exercisable only through Parliament. This power is initiated by the laying of a Bill containing a proposed law before Parliament, and the Bill can only become a statute if it is passed (often with amendments) by Parliament (which normally but not always means both Houses of Parliament) and is then formally assented to by HM The Queen. Thus, Parliament, or more precisely the Crown in Parliament, lays down the law through statutes – or primary legislation as it is also known – and not in any other way.” This is a clear statement that identifies that a Bill may only be a statute if agreed upon by the executive. This questions the extent to where Dicey is correct with his thoughts on the Parliament.Dicey’s final point states that laws passed by Parliament cannot be challenged by the courts. This statement is supported by The Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states that the executive and the judiciary must respect Parliament’s decisions. This stops the courts from overruling statutes using common law. Another case that comes to mind is R v Secretary of State for Transport. This is a case where a company of Spanish fisherman claimed that the UK had breached the EU Law as they required the ships that entered the UK to be owned majority British. The Parliament had discovered that the EU Law was breached and a pending Act of Parliament was ready to change that, but the courts restrained the application. This case stands relevant to contradict Dicey’s standpoint on the matter of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK. But using these two references against each other it is clear to see that there are multiple perspectives on the interpretation of Dicey’s words and that his claims may remain accurate to an extent.  Looking at the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council  which was a decision about whether the Henry VII clause of power of the executive to modify conflicting laws to attain to compliance was impliedly repealed by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The decision was no as statutes are divided into to two types: regular statutes and constitutional statutes. Regular statues can be impliedly repealed whereas constitutional statutes can only be expressly repealed. The European Communities Act 1972 act was named a constitutional statute deeming the Secretary of State’s amendments successful. The case also promotes Parliament to be clearer in the legislation they write when wanting to abrogate rights.In conclusion, Dicey’s standpoint on the topic of Parliament’s Sovereignty can be challenged by modern day statutes such as the European Communities Act 1972 which joined the UK into the European Union which changed national law in the UK to EU Law. After sumarising Dicey’s viewpoint in relation to case law, there is one question still left to ask. How far, to an extent is Dicey accurate with the statement “In theory, Parliament has total power.  It is sovereign.”. Assessing this question, it is clear that he is correct, but Parliament do have certain restrictions by modern day statutes that prevents them from possessing “total power”. Dicey’s views have been mentioned through important cases in modern case law on the UK leaving the European union as his controversial remarks on Parliament’s Sovereignty  can be seen as useful to understand how much power Parliament actually has over the UK. Parliament’s power can also be seen as a crucial factor for the stability of legislation in the UK in order to comply with EU Law and not restricted. However, as it stands, the UK has left the European Union.