Has parl sovereignty been strengthened?

How has the Supreme Court strengthened parliamentary sovereignty?

• SC has become a key defender of parliamentary sovereignty, especially when the executive tries to bypass Parliament.

• Far from undermining Parliament, judicial intervention has upheld the foundational constitutional principle that only Parliament can make or unmake laws

Give evidence to support the claim that the SC has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

R (Miller) v The PM 2019: Boris Johnson’s government advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit crisis.

• The Supreme Court ruled this action unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating Parliament’s ability to carry out its constitutional functions.

What did the Miller v PM case demonstrate about the SC?

• It was not asserting its own power - it was defending Parliament’s right to sit, scrutinise and hold government to account.

• The SC rulings, rather than weakening Parliament, empowered it by restraining the executive.

• The court acted as a constitutional bodyguard, ensuring Parliament remains ultimate authority.

How was the Miller v PM case a landmark moment?

• A landmark moment affirming that the executive is not above the law and Parliament remains sovereign even during political turmoil

In an age of executive dominance, the judiciary has…?

• The judiciary has actually been a safeguard for parliamentary sovereignty, rather than a threat

Give the the counter argument topic sentence arguing that the Supreme Court can in fact hinder parliamentary sovereignty

Some critics argue that the SC’s recent interventions risk shifting power to the judiciary, making unelected judges the final arbiters of political decisions.

Could UNDERMINE the very sovereignty they claim to defend

Give me an example of how the SC could be viewed as hindering parliamentary sovereignty

Miller II backlash

• Critics (especially from Con party or right wing press) argued that the Supreme Court overstepped its role by interpreting in political decisions.

• Some MPs even accused the judiciary of entering the political arena, suggesting the Court’s ruling on prorogation was subjective and ideological

• THE DAILY MAIL infamously branded the SC judges as ‘Enemies of the People’ on its front cover issue

The perception of “judge-made law” risks…?

Risks undermining the legitimacy of Parliament itself, especially if it looks like the judiciary - not MPs - is setting constitutional boundaries.

It could be argued that while courts uphold legal sovereignty,…

While courts uphold legal sovereignty, too much judicial activism could weaken parliamentary sovereignty by turning constitutional conventions into legal restrictions, thus reducing Parliaments flexibility

How has devolution weakened Parliamentary sovereignty?

• Devolution has eroded the practical application of parliamentary sovereignty, even though Parliament still remains legally sovereign.

• The creation of the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has resulted in legislative power being permanently exercised outside Westminster, and political pressures have made these powers difficult - if not impossible - to reverse.

Give an example of how devolved institutions in the UK have made these shared legislative powers difficult to reverse.

The Scotland Act 2016:

• Gave the Scottish Parliament permanent legislative powers over income tax, welfare, and other areas.

• Even more significantly, Section 1 states that the Scottish Parliament and Government are “a permanent part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements” - although reversible, politically, its untouchable

What constitutional expectation does the Scotland Act create for Westminster?

A constitutional expectation that Westminster will not interfere, meaning sovereignty is no longer absolute in practice.

If parliament can’t realistically reclaim or override devolved powers without triggering a constitutional crisis or referendum, then its sovereignty is seriously constrained.

Parliament remains legally sovereign under the UK’s…?

Uncodified constitution. Devolved institutions only exist because Westminster created them through acts of Parliament. LEGALLY, Westminster can alter, suspend, or abolish them at any time.

Give an example of how Westminster can assert its sovereignty over devolved regional institutions.

Northern Ireland Assembly suspensions

• The Assembly was suspended multiple times (e.g. 2002-2007 and again from 2017-2020)

• Each time, Westminster resumed direct rule without legal challenge

—> This shows that sovereignty hasn’t vanished: Parliament still holds the constitutional authority to step back in. Devolution may limit sovereignty in practice, but not in principle or law.

The power shift caused by devolution is more …?

POLITICAL than LEGAL. Sovereignty has been restrained by public expectation and political convention, not by constitutional obligation.

Parliament still makes or unmakes laws - it just chooses not to override devolution because of democratic respect, not because it can’t.

What could be the final judgement on devolutions effect on parliamentary sovereignty?

Devolution has created a quasi-federal structure, which places real, political limits on Westminser’s ability to legislate freely across the UK.

The Sewel Convention (Westminster not legislating on devolved matters without consent) might not be legally binding - but the political cost of ignoring it is huge.

How has Brexit allowed Parliament to reassert its sovereignty?

Post-Brexit, Parliament regained control over immigration, trade, and regulatory policy, reversing decades of EU influence and increasing national policy flexibility.

Give an example of how Parliament has used its autonomous decision-making post-Brexit on immigration

The introduction of a points-based immigration system in 2021 replaced EU freedom of movement.

Parliament also gained the ability to negotiate independent trade deals, such as the UK-Australia trade deal (2021) and joining the CPTPP in 2023, demonstrating legislative autonomy.

How could you counter argue that Brexit enhanced parliamentary sovereignty?

• These powers are largely exercised by the executive, not Parliament.

• Trade deals are negotiated by ministers with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, undermining the very sovereignty Brexit was meant to restore.

• The new immigration system sparked backlash due to labour shortages in agriculture and healthcare, questioning the benefits of control.

How could you summarise the argument that Brexit does not majorly enhance parliamentary sovereignty?

While Parliament has theoretical control over areas like immigration and trade, in practice, power has shifted to the executive, and oversight remains weak—so sovereignty has been recentralised, not democratised.