Does the rest of this follow?
tulkvmoxhay wrote:Thanks to all for the replies. Forgive my misstating or mistyping perhaps point iv.In essence I suppose I was trying to raise the issue for debate that in Constitutional terms the 1972 Act was unlike any other.It pulled a plug [metaphorically] on those sovereignties debated by AV Dicey. No longer was English law a closed system and Parliamentary puissance was inexorably draining away from that date.The judicature recognised its new position in Constitutional terms from that date (Purposive approach, Factortame et al), while Parliament maintained a fiction of supremacy.
And despite its enactment in terms, the ECA was a simple ratification by a body no longer supreme in Constitutional terms of the Crown's previous Treaty as the Crown's Treaty had deposited sovereignty elsewhere -- in the International Organisation that became the EU.
The EU has, in Lisbon, provided a Treaty method of withdrawal. The UK Crown as signatory can act upon that without reference to Parliament. Thereafter and I mean after, not before, Art 50, then Parliament is entitled to ratify or not.
Smouldering Stoat wrote:I would answer the question in the negative. Passing the European Communities Act did not involve the surrender of Parliamentary sovereignty; EU law was incorporated into domestic law only because Parliament said so; and only while Parliament said so. Parliament could have declined to pass the Act; in which case that law would not have been incorporated. It could repeal the Act, in which case EU law would cease to have effect.
Sovereignty is vested where it always has been.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests