Parliament's Illegality: Britain's Constitutional Crisis

The British constitution is not codified, but the Supreme Court recognises constitutional principles and statutes. Parliamentary sovereignty is often seen as a central element in the British constitution, making Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. However, the extent of parliamentary sovereignty is contested. The UK constitution is described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified', with large parts written down in statute law. The courts can advise Parliament of primary legislation that conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998 by issuing 'Declarations of Incompatibility'. In recent years, the UK Parliament shutdown ordered by Prime Minister Boris Johnson was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, which stated that the suspension was null and void. Historically, the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 stated that the Stamp Act had a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists and that no taxes could be imposed on them without their consent, demonstrating the colonists' belief that Parliament had passed laws illegally.

Explore related products

Timeline of the British Monarchy

$20.79 $25.99

The crisis of Parliaments: English history 1509-1660 (The Short Oxford history of the modern world)

$63.1

The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327

$14.36 $37.99

The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1640-1660 [9 Volume Set]

$831.81 $895

The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament

$29.63

Parliament: The Biography (Volume I - Ancestral Voices)

$26.25

No taxation without representation

The British Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK and can create or end any law. However, the extent of its sovereignty is contested. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that an Act of Parliament is the highest form of law, but also that "Parliament cannot bind itself".

The British Constitution is bound to international law, as Parliament has increased its power in cooperation with other countries in international organisations, such as the United Nations and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 has granted citizens specific rights and given the judiciary some power to enforce them. The courts can advise Parliament of primary legislation that conflicts with the Act, but Parliament is not bound to amend the law.

The UK constitution is described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. While it does not exist in a single text, large parts of it are written down in the laws passed in Parliament, known as statute law. Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. For example, the Parliament Act 1911 removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament.

The colonists' complaint was never about the amount of taxation, but always about the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. Patrick Henry's resolution in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, that the principle of "no taxation without representation" was an essential part of the British Constitution, and that Virginia alone had the right to tax Virginians.

Daniel Dulany, an American Loyalist and lawyer, stated that the constitutional authority of Parliament's rights to bind American subjects depended on whether the Commons of Great Britain were virtually the representatives of the Commons of America. William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, argued in 1766 that the Commons of Britain ought not to tax the "Commons of America" without gaining consent from their representatives.

The Stamp Act subverted colonists' rights

The Stamp Act of 1765 was a controversial piece of legislation passed by the British Parliament that had significant implications for the rights of colonists in America. The Act imposed a direct tax on colonists, requiring them to pay a tax represented by a stamp on various forms of papers, documents, and playing cards. This tax was imposed without the approval of colonial legislatures, and payments had to be made in British sterling, which was difficult for colonists to obtain.

The Act was enacted to generate revenue to offset the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies in America after the costly Seven Years' War with France. However, the colonists objected to the tax on the grounds that it violated their rights as Englishmen. They argued that they had no representation in Parliament and, therefore, any taxation without their consent was unconstitutional. The slogan "No taxation without representation" encapsulated their sentiment.

The Stamp Act Congress, held in New York City in October 1765, was the first united action by the colonies. The Congress acknowledged Parliament's right to regulate colonial trade but asserted that it did not have the authority to tax the colonies due to their lack of representation. The Congress also stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that taxation could only be imposed by their respective legislatures.

The colonists' arguments centered on the principle that as British subjects, they possessed the same rights as those in Britain. They believed that taxation required their consent, which could only be granted through their representation in Parliament. However, as they elected no members of Parliament, they considered the Stamp Act a violation of their rights. This belief was echoed by Daniel Dulany, Jr., of Maryland, who wrote in a widely circulated pamphlet that the taxation imposed by the British Parliament was "unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution."

The Stamp Act provoked widespread protests and boycotts, damaging British trade in the colonies. It was eventually repealed on March 18, 1766, but the same day saw the passage of the Declaratory Act, which asserted the British Parliament's authority to legislate for the colonies. The dispute over colonial rights and representation continued to escalate, ultimately leading to the American Declaration of Independence in July 1776.

Commons of Britain taxing Commons of America

The British Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK and can create or end any law. However, the UK constitution is partly written and wholly uncodified, and the extent of parliamentary sovereignty is contested.

The British Constitution is bound to international law, and the Supreme Court recognises constitutional principles and statutes. The Human Rights Act 1998 has granted citizens specific rights and given the judiciary some power to enforce them. The courts can advise Parliament of primary legislation that conflicts with the Act, but Parliament is not bound to amend the law.

The British "commoners" of the various parts of the Empire were represented differently, and the question of how they were represented most constitutionally was a point of contention between the colonies and Parliament. The colonists believed that Parliament had passed laws illegally and responded by forming militias and seizing political control of each colony. The colonists argued that they had all the rights of Englishmen, and that the principle of "no taxation without representation" was an essential part of the British Constitution.

Daniel Dulany, an American Loyalist and lawyer, stated that the constitutional authority of Parliament's rights to bind American subjects depended on whether the Commons of Great Britain were virtually the representatives of the Commons of America. William Pitt, the 1st Earl of Chatham, argued in 1766 that the Commons of Britain ought not to tax the Commons of America without gaining the consent of their representatives. He stated that even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent and allowed them representatives.

The colonists' complaint was not about the amount of taxation, but about the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.

Explore related products

Houses of Parliament: History, Art, Architecture

$41.14 $65

Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament (Reacting to the Past™)

$30 $32.5

Parliaments and Politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History)

$47.5 $50

The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808), Vol. I

$26.45 $8.99

Crown and Parliaments, 1558–1689 (Cambridge Perspectives in History)

$20.1

Parliaments and English Politics, 1621-1629

$220

Johnson's suspension of Parliament ruled illegal

In 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament was unlawful. Johnson had advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis, preventing it from carrying out its constitutional role. The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, with 11 justices agreeing that Johnson's advice to the Queen was unlawful. This ruling marked a significant moment in asserting the sovereignty of Parliament and the enhanced position of the judiciary within the UK's unwritten constitution.

The suspension of Parliament meant that neither house could meet, debate, or pass legislation. They could not debate government policy, ask questions of ministers, or take evidence in committees. This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy occurred in exceptional circumstances, with a fundamental change due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on October 31, 2019, the date set for Britain's exit from the European Union.

The court ruling deepened Britain's political deadlock, with Brexit approaching and lawmakers divided over how to proceed. Johnson claimed that he needed to prorogue Parliament to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. However, opponents argued that he was trying to evade democratic scrutiny and gain a respite from rebellious lawmakers. The Scottish National Party's Joanna Cherry, who challenged the prorogation, stated that Johnson must resign, and transparency campaigner Gina Miller, who took the case to the Supreme Court, emphasized the win for parliamentary sovereignty.

The UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. While it does not exist in a single text, large parts of it are written down in laws passed by Parliament, known as statute law. Parliamentary sovereignty is a key principle, making Parliament the supreme legal authority with the power to create or end any law. The courts play a role in interpreting and enforcing the constitution, with the Supreme Court recognizing constitutional principles and statutes.

The UK constitution is partly written and wholly uncodified

The UK constitution is spread across several places, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (constitutional conventions), and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works. It is partly written and wholly uncodified, which means that while large parts of it are written down in laws passed in Parliament (statute law), it does not exist in a single text or document.

The UK's uncodified constitution offers certain advantages, such as flexibility, allowing for a pragmatic approach to governance. It has been modified frequently over the years in response to changing circumstances, enabling different policies to be tried, tested, and developed, with an optimal arrangement being refined over time. It is also considered more democratic, as each successive generation can influence the constitution through the representatives they elect.

However, critics argue that the uncodified nature of the UK constitution makes it confusing and ambiguous, hindering citizens' understanding of their rights and the roles and responsibilities of different political institutions. This lack of clarity can potentially lead to abuse of power and make governing more challenging.

The UK constitution is bound to international law, and Parliamentary sovereignty is often seen as a central element, with an Act of Parliament being the highest form of law. However, this sovereignty is not absolute, as Parliament has voluntarily limited its power through membership in international organisations and the passing of laws that restrict parliamentary sovereignty.

Frequently asked questions