You say "if parliament pushes the courts too far, the courts may no longer respect the sovereignty of parliament"
I don't think the courts will need to abandon their respect for the sovereignty of Parliament: I think all they'll need to do is clarify what it's based on, and how it fits with the principle of the Rule of Law.
I've argued, for the last few years, that: a) Parliament holds sovereignty in trust for the people; b) the sovereignty of a standing Parliament (elected to sit more or less continuously for a period of years in order to legislate on whatever matters might arise) would be subordinate to the sovereignty of a Constitutional Parliament (i.e. one elected to legislate solely on a single issue of constitutional importance); and c) in certain circumstances, it would be legitimate for the courts to disregard/overrule an Act of (the standing) Parliament on the presumed authority of a Constitutional Parliament.
There are, of course, a few ifs and buts!
If you're interested, you can find some analysis of this perspective in my 2020 essay, A Trust of Sovereignty ( https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/a-trust-of-sovereignty) which looks at the roots of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and how it has drifted from its origins.
Joshua, this is SO helpful; thank you. Whilst this is a political- cum party political observation what is striking is the serious unwisdom of Sunak having so largely staked his political reputation (and future?) on this one issue, where-though of concern to many - the public at large are more focused on other troubles and failures for which they are likely to be blaming him and the government of the day.
I humbly revisit my earlier observations in this forum about the primrose path of a descent into the watering down of the rule of law as a qualified concept and as a tedious optional extra wherever viewed as an exasperating stumbling block to its policy whim of the moment.
There is far more at stake here than this one unspeakable, odious and in any event unworkable NON policy.
And with complex, essentially humanitarian questions such as this there are no quick answers or fixes. It is to do rather with mundane, principled hard graft.
You say "if parliament pushes the courts too far, the courts may no longer respect the sovereignty of parliament"
I don't think the courts will need to abandon their respect for the sovereignty of Parliament: I think all they'll need to do is clarify what it's based on, and how it fits with the principle of the Rule of Law.
I've argued, for the last few years, that: a) Parliament holds sovereignty in trust for the people; b) the sovereignty of a standing Parliament (elected to sit more or less continuously for a period of years in order to legislate on whatever matters might arise) would be subordinate to the sovereignty of a Constitutional Parliament (i.e. one elected to legislate solely on a single issue of constitutional importance); and c) in certain circumstances, it would be legitimate for the courts to disregard/overrule an Act of (the standing) Parliament on the presumed authority of a Constitutional Parliament.
There are, of course, a few ifs and buts!
If you're interested, you can find some analysis of this perspective in my 2020 essay, A Trust of Sovereignty ( https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/a-trust-of-sovereignty) which looks at the roots of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and how it has drifted from its origins.
Joshua, this is SO helpful; thank you. Whilst this is a political- cum party political observation what is striking is the serious unwisdom of Sunak having so largely staked his political reputation (and future?) on this one issue, where-though of concern to many - the public at large are more focused on other troubles and failures for which they are likely to be blaming him and the government of the day.
I humbly revisit my earlier observations in this forum about the primrose path of a descent into the watering down of the rule of law as a qualified concept and as a tedious optional extra wherever viewed as an exasperating stumbling block to its policy whim of the moment.
There is far more at stake here than this one unspeakable, odious and in any event unworkable NON policy.
And with complex, essentially humanitarian questions such as this there are no quick answers or fixes. It is to do rather with mundane, principled hard graft.