That's nonsense. This does not limit Parliamentary Supremacy at all. By simple basis of logic, Parliamentary law has to be consistent - precisely because it is the supreme authority. It is required that any new law passed by Parliament comply with all currently existing laws, otherwise Parliament's supremacy becomes undermined.
Erm,.... this is
exactly incorrect. It is precisely because Parliament is supreme that new laws need not be consistent with existing laws. In the event that Parliament decides to pass a new law that conflicts with an old one, the new one overturns the old one. Or as a classic Victorian formulation put it, "Parliament is not bound by its predecessor."
Or, as wikipedia puts it, "No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament)."
Or, as Parliament itself put it, "No Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change."
"Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
They include:
* The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
* The Human Rights Act 1998.
* The UK's entry to the European Union in 1972.
* The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.
These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least,
Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."
When Parliament wishes to overturn laws they don't pass new laws that contradict them. They repeal the old laws. I aren't as familiar with UK law, but the Acts of the New Zealand parliament are overflowing with repealed sections.
So are the UK laws. The question is, what happens if Parliament does not explicitly repeal and old law, but just passes new ones. And the answer, legally, is that the new one implicitly repeals the old one and takes precedence.
The sole exception to that is the new legal theory that certain documents are so fundamental that they trump the ability of Parliament to implicitly repeal them.
This is where the twin pillars of Parliamentary Supremacy and Rule of Law are so important. Parliament cannot break an existing law. So if they pass a law saying "The Bill of Rights can only be altered by 2/3 majority" they cannot then repeal that section except by a 2/3 majority - because the law dictates it and they are bound by the law.
Wrong. This is explicit. Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. The future parliament can simply vote to repeal the law by a simple majority and it is repealed.
That's the key aspects of Parliamentary supremacy, and the reason that Canada has a "Charter" of Rights and Freedoms. They literally had to re-write and fundamentally restructure the governance of their country in order to create a set of rules that would be binding on future parliaments. (Specifically, what they did was they got the
BRITISH Parliament to pass an Act mandating that all Canadian parliaments follow this Charter, and then the British Parliament foreswore the ability to legislate for Canada and granted Canada total sovereignty, thus locking in the Charter.)
However as long as they are within the confines of the law, they can repeal that section and replace it with anything they want.
Right but misleading. Parliament need not be within the confines of
anything -- they can do what they want, when they want. Because no previous Parliament has the authority to restrict what they do.
In particular, Parliament could still attempt to pass an amendment to the Canadian constitution (as they did when they created the Charter), but at this point as a sovereign nation, Canada would probably simply ignore them. The fact that Parliament has sworn never to interfere with Canada's internal affairs again means as little as the fact that Parliament has sworn to devolve power to the Welsh Assembly. What one Parliament can do another Parliament can freely undo.
