It is questionable whether or not Parliamentary sovereignty means the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. This is due to external factors such as the effect of the European Union law and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it will be considered if any other existing laws or bodies do have power within this subject and can affect these decisions. According to A.V. Dicey, who was a constitutional theorist, parliamentary sovereignty has three basic principles which have both positive and negative effects. One of the positive aspects is that the Queen is able to pass laws legally. Parliament is the highest legislative body within the UK and therefore has the ability to create any laws in which they deem as necessary. However, because of this, neither judge nor court are able to question any law of parliament or statute despite their own personal opinions; and therefore are forced to attempt to fit these statutes …show more content…
Lord Bridge stated that “under the terms of the Act of 1972 it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law”. This seems to destroy any notion of Parliamentary supremacy that may have existed, emphasising, as the ECJ has stated, that EU law is supreme. Traditional theory posits that any Act of Parliament could impliedly repeal an earlier one, by being deemed to override any inconsistent provisions. What this judgment seemed to highlight was, however, that Parliament was bound and that EU supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy, now underpinned the legislative