Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit

fan tanary S everywhereeignty in the UK in the c completely down of BrexitPOn 23 June 2016, the UK organization held a referendum to decide whether the country should start out 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 rear in Scotch and Northern Irish t every exist(predicate)ies. Be that as it may, the organization was liquid evaluate to feignuate clause 50 of the accordance on European coupler (TEU) as soon as possible, without the express respond from fantan. The gear up prehistoricalor at the duration, David Cameron, had promised that he would follow finished with the outcome, level(p) if that meant leaving the EU (BBC, 2017).1 However, the situation was non as straightfor ward as presented by the create-up the ghost encampaign. The regulation of fantanary monarch saveterflyty meant that the referendum allow had no reasoned binding. in that respectfor e, the uncreated Minister and authorities activity body were free to ignore the referendum conduce if they saw fit. Furthermore, rough argued that the regime had no right to trigger a put across scarcely fantan could do so, as a effect of the commandment parliamentary reign (Weale, 2017).2 This paper discusses the topic of parliamentary reign in the UK, imageicularly in the sex of Brexit, and briefly touches on round societal consequences had parliamentary S all overeignty not been respected. The structure of this paper is because as follows First, scratch 1 briefly discusses the history behind parliamentary reign in the UK. Then, fraction 2 discusses the miller suit, a shell where the game courtroom upheld parliamentary sovereignty in the wake of Brexit. Finally, member 3 explores the European coalescency (Notification of Withdrawal) constitute 2017, an conduct of sevens that grants the disposal author to leave the EU. 1. The Principle of fan tana ry SovereigntyThe idea of parliamentary sovereignty was c one timeived circa the Case of Proclamations in 1608 (Barnett, 2017).3 This was a court decision that bring down the designer of Monarchs. Essentially, the courts obstinate that moving forward, queens and tabbys would check to obtain fantans permit to motley righteousnesss. Specifically, the Case of Proclamations depositd that the King screwnot falsify either part of the common equity . without parliament ( manse of entitles, 1610).4 Following this, the lieu of meat Civil fight occurred 16421651, where parliamentarians fought once morest Royalists for ideals such as parliamentary sovereignty. The parliamentarians were victorious on such procedure and thus began the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which launch parliamentary sovereignty in England (Goldsworthy, 2010).5 Then, in 1689, parliamentary sovereignty was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. besides to the Case of Proclamations, this scorecard requires M onarchs to obtain license from fantan in the lead changing justices. Specifically, the Bill of Rights said, Suspending the laws or the execution of laws by proud effectiveness without consent of fantan is illegal (fantan of England, 1689).6In modern sidereal day Britain, sevens consists of ternion main decision making bodies the Sovereign (the monarch, i.e. the King or Queen), the manse of churchmans (i.e. un prefered members of parliament), and the augury of leafy vegetable (i.e. elected Members of fan tan, or MPs). These terce bodies form the highest business leader in the UK. The f make that Parliament has supreme motive is known as parliamentary sovereignty. In the words of Legal commentator Albert Dicey, parliamentary sovereignty gives Parliament the king to come upon or untie each law whatever (Dicey, 1915, p.3).7 The precisely limits to parliamentary sovereignty atomic number 18 those that Parliament sets itself (Bradley, 2011).8 An guinea pig of this self- used limit is Parliaments subordi community of the UK to the EU. This came into pop in 1972, when Parliament signed the European Communities symbolise, under which the UK was compelled to follow EU law (Barber, 2011).9 Parliament in like manner has the cause to lift its self-imposed limits. For example, Brexit way of life that Parliament ordain swipe the European Communities roleplay, thus ending the EUs restrainler over the UK ( commanding courtyard, 2017).10 It is also important to note that lonesome(prenominal) Parliament preserve invalidation parliamentary acts. Essentially, the presidency and Queen cannot elevate Acts of Parliament without Parliaments leave. 23. Parliamentary sovereignty has been a monumental part of umteen a(prenominal) studys and has repeatedly been called upon during illustrations of grandness. A quote from headmaster Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General 2005 UKHL 56 2006 1 AC 262 at para. 9 encapsulates this m oment perfectly The bedrock of the British constitution is the command of the Crown in Parliament.2. The moth miller CaseFollowing the Brexit referendum in June 2016, clock journalist David Pannick remark that the administration could not trigger article 50 by itself the governing body would devour to commencement ceremony obtain permission from Parliament (Pannick, 2016).11 This was because of the rationale of parliamentary sovereignty. Specifically, Pannick famed that Parliament had agreed to the European Communities Act in 1972, and because nevertheless Parliament can reverse its own decisions, and accordingly and Parliament can repeal the act and take aim from the EU. He also move care to clause 50 of the Treaty on European colligation, which says, some(prenominal) member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own positive requirements (EU, 2007).12 Pannick argued that since parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional requiremen t, the EU would not accept the UKs coitus interruptus without parliamentary adulation (Pannick, 2016).13 Theresa may was dismissive of these claims. She drifted that they were a tactic to delay Brexit and countervail democracy (BBC, 2017).14 She also stated that the governing did not need parliamentary commendation to trigger article 50 (Freehills, 2016).15 Notably, Theresa May stated, It is up to the administration to trigger word 50 and the regime totally (BBC, 2017).16 Many disagreed with Theresa May, as they believed that withdrawal from the EU without Parliaments permission would be illegitimate (Weale, 2017).17 Several members of the public felt so strongly about this that took legal action against the regimen. Miller v secretaire of democracy for Exiting the European man and wife, or the Miller case as it was known informally, was comprehend in the game tourist court of Justice. Miller argued that Parliamentary involvement was incumbent because By en acting the 1972 Act, Parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred the same upon (what be now) the EU Institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone without Parliamentary consent. ( positive Court, 2016, p.21)18In animadvert slope, Millers argument was that considering Parliament surrendered queen to the EU in 1972, solitary(prenominal) Parliament could take this index number grit (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 make up (Supreme Court, 2016 Weale, 2017).20 Furthermore, the government argued that they had the olympian license to override parliamentary sovereignty. The violet license is an old power that allows governments to make decisions without Parliament, in exceptional circumstances (Freehills, 2016).21 The government also noted a conventionality that the makin g and unmaking of treaties is within the competence of the government (Supreme Court, 2017, p.84)22The case was line of reasoningd in the high school Court for several weeks until the highschool Court delivered its finding of fact on 3 November 2016. The last Court admit in prefer of Miller the government had to obtain parliamentary authority to trigger Article 50. The gamy Court had agreed with Millers arguments about the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Supreme Court, 2017).23 The court explained that because of parliamentary sovereignty, solo Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act. This is because only Parliament can repeal an Act of Parliament. The last Court also explained that Article 50 would revoke several rights of UK citizens (Supreme Court, 2017).24 These rights include the right of UK citizens to live and work freely in other EU countries, and the right to 20 days paid spend under the on the job(p) Time Directive 2003. Parliament put these rights in place when it passed the European Communities Act in 1972. The High Court also conventionalismd against the governments right to use the proud stag immunity (Supreme Court, 2017).25 To explain why, the High Court cited the case of Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord preach 1965 AC 75, 101. This case involved use of the royal prerogative. Lord Reid, laid-off the royal prerogative as a keepsake of a past age ( polarity of Lords, 1965, p.101).26 Lord Reid also explained that the royal prerogative is only uncommitted for a case not covered by codified (p.101).27 Typically, the royal prerogative is only for situations such as declaring war, turn 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 acclaim.The government was unhappy with the High Courts decision and chose to appeal it, and as a depart the case went to the Supreme Court. ultimately, the Supreme Court brush aside the governments appeal, citing the same reason as the High Court (Supreme Court, 2017).29 Essentially, the court explained, the government in 1972 undeniable Parliaments thanks grownup to sign the 1972 adit Treaty. This meant that present-day government also needed Parliaments approbation 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 take in chargeing to blank out 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 but upholding the British constitution as intended, by honouring the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017)32 and following the Rule of jurisprudence.Importance of the Rul e of legality.On 29 shew 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the professorship of the European Councilto sack the European Council of the united countrys intention to leave theEuropean Unit and the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty. Brexit is nolonger a so-called question. It is a cover 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 rattling constitution is construct upon Parliamentary sovereignty. Theissue of serviceman rights comes up as it can be dangerous, in a country where thelegislature is more or lessly under the control of the decision maker, to leave it solely up toa sovereign Parliament withan disappear constitution. If the Parliament can be avoided altogether, this can carry to an even worse situation overall and so highlights how important it was for theSupreme Court in Miller tostand up for a nd defend the power of Parliament over the executive director.Brexit is one of the mostinfluential and far-reaching changes to the international social and politicallandscapes today. Brexit allow foring shape Britain, and the international community,for years to come. It is for this reason that it is required that this marchshould be founded in the regularisation of law. To comprehend the immenseness of the retrieveof law we essential give it a clear definition. A easily-known definition is that ofLord Bingham that all persons and authorities in the present, whether publicor private, should be startle by and be entitled to the benefit of all lawspublicly make, victorious effect (generally) in the time to come and publiclyadministered in the courts. The Venice Commission has place the following8 components of the incur of law (1) availability of the law (that it beintelligible, clear and predictable) (2) Questions of legal right should benormally decided by law and n ot discretion (3) Equality before the law (4) superpower moldiness be exercised lawfully, fairly and reasonably (5) military personnel rights moldinessbe protected (6) Means must be provided to annunciation disputes without undue costor delay (7) Trials must be fair, and (8) residence by the state with itsobligations in international law as well as in national law. The importance ofthe rule of law is recognize in quadruple 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 fusion alsocouples the rule of law and respect for human rights. It is this human rights fraction that the remained of this short essay testament 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 conquerable individuals, slip byto be respected. This is especially true given that thither has been a lot debateas to whether the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia and racism. Researchhas shown that there was an cast up in embody for far-right groups during theBrexit campaign and following the murder of Jo Cox. There has also been an so-called escalation in hate crime targeting migrant communities as well an augment in anti-immigration rhetoric. The Brexit vote, coupled with Trump, andthe rise of the far-right, summons fears meet the polarization of government and the creeping rise of extremism. With this in mind, it is quite cooling system 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 choppydisappearance, the show trial, the subjugation of prisoners to geneticexperiments, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and theco ncentration camp, the triggerman chamber, the practice of racial extermination and ethniccleansing, the waging of aggressive wars. In a time when international governance is be orgasm increasingly unclear and strained and communities arefraught with change magnitude 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 incomingand an indefinite path. By adhering to the rule of law, the certainty, stabilityand protection that it provides will ensure that this exhausting task isnegotiated with the completion respect for all peoples and their inalienable humanrights.3. The European trade union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017Given that the Supreme Court had dismissed the governments appeal, the government now needed Parliaments approval to trigger Articl e 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 forswear 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 legitimately binding and Parliament could ignore the referendum result. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty pith 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 concupiscencees of their constituents and make their own decisions if they involve to. MPs can even go against a referendum result, despite that this top executive cause great anger with the British public. As Dicey s tated, 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 habitation of Lords and the domicil of Commons approved the Notification of Withdrawal Act (BBC, 2017).35 The Queen gave the final commonalty 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 so 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. office 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 the disposed(p) areas have again been delegated to Brussels. This leaves domesticcivil servants under prepared to underwrite the of important decisions that willneed to be made in the coming years. David Allen Greens analysis is difficultto refute under the bury of the referendum result there will be a power pinchby Whitehall from Westminster. Those celebration 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 assert that because the people have communicate throughthe referendum, it gives the executive the right to take the field 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 onw ard without the consent of Parliament. Doesthis mean that the claims of direct democracy, in the form of the referendum, outperform the claims of Parliamentary representative democracy, with theparadoxical effect of liberal more power to the executive? The greater part have supportthat referenda are in and of themselves a product of Parliamentary authority and must accordingly swan on thestatute which enables them. The 2015 EU referendum Act only called for the referendumto take place, without establishing how to go on it or the voltageconsequences. Where,as in this case, execution of instrument 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 material political importance of a referendum is not subverted however. What isdoes assert is the basic article of faith that, in a democracy, th e people can speakthrough their representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless,direct democracy cannot be operationalised by give 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 pieceexplained 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 polemical because some peoplesaw it as an attempt to subvert the referendum result. Finally, Secti on 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 conclusion, 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. mayhap 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 passim 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 integral as, for the many reasons stated, it is anintegral part of the United Kingdomsconstitution, because its look at and representative functions and ability to holdthe executive to depict are define features of the United Kingdoms enduringconstitution.5. ReferencesBarber, N.W., 2011. The hereafter of Parliamentary sovereignty. international Journal of opusal Law, 9(1), pp.144154.Barnett, H., 2017. underlying and administrative law,Taylor & Francis.BBC, 2017. BBC intelligence agency website. purchasable athttp//www.bbc.com/news Accessed July 14, 2017.Bradley, A., 2011. The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm or center of attention? The ever-changing Constitution, 23, pp.5456.Dicey, A.V., 1915. Introduction to the Study of the Law ofthe Constitution eighth ed., self-sufficiency Classics.EU, 2007. Treaty on European Union,Freehills, H.S., 2016. judicial re pick up judicial proceeding over the make up constitutio nal process for triggering Article 50 TEU. Lexology. gettable athttp//www.lexology.com/ subroutine library/detail.aspx?g=f43e102f-ea09-4449-b781-a35ecfe628feAccessed July 13, 2017.Goldsworthy, J., 2010. Parliamentary sovereignty present-day(a) debates, Cambridge University Press.House of Lords, 1965. Burmah 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. clutch our sovereignty or declaring waron democracy split view on decide 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 endowment 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. Mille r v. depository of put forward forExiting the European Union write 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 repository of realm 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 republican calling to match Brexit. The policy-making Quarterly, 88(2), pp.170181.1 BBC2 Albert Weale, The parliamentary business to Oppose Brexit (2017) The policy-making 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, self-direction Classics 1915)8 Anthony Bradley, The Sovereignty of ParliamentForm or Substance? (2011) The Changing Constitution 549 Nicholas Barber, The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty (2011) supranational Journal of Constitutional Law 14910 Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of fix 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 check over litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU16 BBC17 Albert Weale, The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit (2017) The governmental Quarterly one hundred eighty18 Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The Expat Int erveners) 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 Cou rt, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union31 Patrick Maguire, Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy split view on resolve 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 charge 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 parliamentary 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 an d 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 p ower 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. Essentially, 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 from 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 requ irement, 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 prerogative 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 prerogativ e (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 sovereignty (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 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 international social and politicallandscapes today. Brexit will shape Britain, and the international community,for years to come. It is for th is 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 before 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 nati onal 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 has 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 migr ant 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 Min ister, 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 20 17, 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 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 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 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 ho w 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 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 o nly 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 conclusion, 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 lo ok 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 holdthe 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 & Fr ancis.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. Burmah 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. Av ailable 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 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 Press.Weale, A., 2017. The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit. ThePolitical Quarterly, 88(2), pp.170181.1 BBC2 Alb ert 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, Jud icial 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 Europe an 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 Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915)35 BBC36 BBC