Brexit and Human Rights: Constitutional Context

This assignment is about understanding the constitutional context of Brexit. It involves referencing various sources related to Brexit, human rights, and legal cases such as Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2), and Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom. The assignment requires a detailed analysis of the topic and proper citation of sources in a specific format.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION A..................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION B..................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION C..................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION D..................................................................................................................................4
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................7

QUESTION A
In accordance with advising the UK Government it can be said that, to bring changes in
the operations of parliament as well as considering the motivation of troops there can separation
of powers. Therefore, such techniques will be helpful and beneficial for the government as well
as for the army to have proper rights and regulations to make their own decision. On the other
side the government is trying to control such obstacles because it will affect their political and
economic relationships. In consideration with the Military general and citizens of UK they want
to have war as they believe that only war can resolve these issues.
Thus, in relation with the same it will be suggested to the legislature to award army with
separation of powers. In consideration with all the damages that has been incurred to the citizens
as lots of death were had due to such operations1. Thus, it can be said the legislature must
facilitate the powers to the army. It will be discussed under the parliamentarian in the house of
commons and house of lords and the favourable outcomes will come. In addition to these the
prime minister will not get embarrassed in the parliament as well as it will enhance the faith in
the mind of army and citizens. In accordance with S3 of HRA 1998 this right to facilitate the
Separation of power is being provided by the Prime minister and the cabinet ministers after
having the huge debates in the parliament. It provides the all thee information related with the
pros and cons of such rights. Therefore, it can be said that the Military will have their personal
rights and they can become able to handle such issues on their own2. It will be helpful in terms of
bringing back the courage and motivation of the Troops. This case is relevant with the case of
Duport Steels v Sir3.
QUESTION B
The Government of UK has decided to ban the families of Easteros in context wit serving
in the nation's army force. Therefore, it is because they are wanted to build up loyalty in the
armed force of country. They have the special rights from the government namely Prerogative
1 Gailmard, S., 2017. Building a New Imperial State: The Strategic Foundations of Separation of Powers in
America. American Political Science Review. 111(4). pp.668-685.
2 Bellamy, R. ed., 2017. The rule of law and the separation of powers. Routledge.
3 Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs: HL 3 Jan 1980
1

power4. These are the rights which are being awarded by the Crown and legislatures in motive to
execute the national issues with proper solutions. They provide the immunity and rights to deal
with any issues and are responsible for every outcomes from such solutions.
The origin of such rights was started from the assigning the executive powers by the
Crown which was traditionally denoted as stance in country. In the current time the power are
assigned and available to the prime minister and cabinet ministers while the monarch will have
personal Prerogative Powers for their disposal5. It has been advised to the prime minister of UK
with the proper immunity and domestic affairs. There has been process of making the main
prerogative power which includes the appointment of honours, prime ministers, dismissal of
Government as well as parliament and royal ascent which in turn awarding the immunity and
right to make the adequate solution to such issues. Therefore, there are still some powers which
are convection by Monarch as a formality to advise the Prime Minister6. It as due to analysing
the loopholes and benefits of such powers which are being assignable as well as the decision
which is being taken by them. The case relevant with the case of R (Bancoult) v. Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or Bancoult7
Judicial System with Prerogative Power:
On the other side, the power which belongs to the ministerial executive are consisted of
power of pardon here the crown is not bound with statue only when the implicitly of states.
However, there main prerogative power which affects the judicial system in UK are belongs to
the two components such as Nolle prosequi and granting of pardons8. Thus, it can be said that the
pardons are relevant with the penalties, punishments and pains to the criminal convictions. There
are the powers which are assigned to the commonly exercises on the advice of the secretary of
4 Nolan, J. M., 2017. Was R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union correctly
decided?. IALS Student Law Review. 4(2). pp.38-41.
5 Bowen, J., 2017. The Supreme Court's Article 50 Judgment: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union [2017] UKSC 5. Business Law International. 18(2).
6 Young, A. and Phillipson, G., 2017. Would use of the prerogative to denounce the ECHR ‘frustrate’the
Human Rights Act? Lessons from Miller.
7 R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2)
8 Mello, P. A., 2017. Curbing the royal prerogative to use military force: The British House of Commons
and the conflicts in Libya and Syria. West European Politics. 40(1). pp.80-100.
2

state for the home departments where the monarch do not have the direct involvement in the use
of such powers. In accordance with the Council of civil services unions v Minister for the CS has
confirmed that the Pardon is not subject to the judicial review, beside this the parliament has
chosen to criticise the application of such rights and powers in the court9.
The government has decided to ban the families from Easteros in terms of serving in the
armed force of nation. In relation with building the trust and loyalty in the army of the country
therefore, the use of such power need to be consult and discussed under the parliament as to take
mutual agreement of all the cabinet members. Here the government did not notify the parliament
for such powers and they have passed such solution to be in acted. In addition to these it can be
said that, the government has been penalised or punished for consulting with the parliament.
There can be big political and economic issue arises as if the mutual agreement and proper
consultation were not being resulted10. The sensitivity of this case is on peek that the army and
citizens want to have revolution and fair judgement for such issues. They believe that war will be
helpful for them in terms of overcoming such operational issues so they have made decision to
resolve such issues. Therefore, it will be beneficial for the government to have better control
over the every part as well as the Army will have their personal rights to make the fair operations
in resolving such issues.
QUESTION C
In order to analyse the rights which are awarded to the parliament is to make and end the
laws or acts which were no longer effective as well as awarding the adequate solution to any
issues. Therefore, the parliamentary sovereignty is the power and right which are being awarded
to the parliament in consideration with making their changes, acts and creating the new laws11.
However, in relation with the case they have developed a new law namely Support Our Boys Act
2017 which has the framework of supporting the troopers in nation. The Introduction of such acts
is to preventing the rights and loyalty of government towards the army.
9 Maguire, M., 2017. Scientific Service: a history of the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants
1920-1990. Institute of Public Admiistration.
10 Murkens, J. E. K., 2017. LSE Law Brexit special# 2: the constitutional context to triggering Article 50
TEU.
11 Richards, D. and Smith, M., 2017. ‘Things were better in the past’: Brexit and the Westminster fallacy of
democratic nostalgia. British Politics and Policy at LSE.
3

In accordance with the section 10 of such acts which determines the European national
arrested anti-war demonstration must need to be deported. However, it will be creating a conflict
in the country as well as provoking the war against the European Union law12. Thus, In relation
with the same it can be said that the parliament has right to develop new laws and acts as
according to the requirements and wants of citizens. They can facilitate the adequate jurisdiction
to every obstacles but with the proper debated and the process of launching the law. Therefore, it
can be said that, before introducing the cat the bill must be drawn by them and it must be gone
through all the process13. There is need to be discussion or debates of the draft in the House of
commons and house of lords which in turn helpful to have the fair amendments and norms in
each acts. Thus, it can be said that UK does not have nay single UN-codified and written
constitution as the parties and current government has rights to make the laws and acts.
Therefore, in this case it can be said that there can be appropriate discussion based on such SOB
act, 2017 and all the amendments are need to be analysed as to have fair jurisdiction and
overcoming with the war situations 14. This case is relevant to the case of Marbury v. Madison as
per making law on justice in European court15.
QUESTION D
The SOB act 2017 was developed by the government in terms of facilitating the adequate
rights and regulations to the troops of the nation. However, in accordance with the section 20 of
the same act it was strictly prohibited to pest any poster on the universally walls. Therefore, their
motive was to preventing the place with having any illegal impacts of war. They also trying to
control the issues which are provoking the intolerance in people. In addition to this Nadia has
placed posters over the university walls with the motive of preventing the war or conveying the
message of end the war16. Thus, it can be said that her intention was right and she was not
12 Swan, S., 2017. A democratic outrage: Scotland’s constitutional position and Brexit. British Politics and
Policy at LSE.
13 Judge, D., Leston-Bandeira, C. and Thompson, L., 2018. Conclusion: The Future of Parliamentary Politics.
Exploring Parliament. p.347
14 Ewing, K., 2017. Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Modern Law Review. 80(4). pp.711-726.
15 Marbury v. Madison
16 Donnelly, J. and Whelan, D. J., 2017. International human rights. Hachette UK.
4

provoking any issues. In spite of this she got arrested by the police as she has placed posters in
front of lecture theatre in consideration with the SOB act. Therefore, it was clearly written over
there that non one can post any poster in university campus which is completely illegal.
However, as per the sovereignty to the parliament in terms with developing of changing the laws
the norms and regulations were made by them in accordance with solving such issues17.
Therefore, it can be said that there are various obstacles and issues which are meant to be
resolved.
In context with the human right act 1998 it can be said that a person will have right to
defend himself/ herself in the court in against any unlawful act incurred over them. Therefore, in
relation with the same it can be said that Nadia and apply into the court in consideration with the
human right act as to get the fair jurisdiction and solutions to her obstacles. In addition to this,
she got arrested as he breaches the law and serious rule18. Therefore, she has to be punished for
such acts but her posters does not contain any illegal or unlawful thing which in turn provoke the
war of any social issues.
The government of UK has passed the act SOB in terms with facilitating the power to the
army or troops in terms of respecting their moral. Thus, the Fundamental rights and freedom has
been awarded by the human right act which was developed for protecting the human rights as
well as facilitating the fair judgement to all the individuals. There are 14 articles and 13
protocols which in turn helpful for protecting the human rights19. The resident of UK can be able
to imply in the court as to have the proper jurisdiction over their issues. In relation with the
capabilities of the person who can apply for the rules and regulations are a child, adult, prisoner
or any individual who is resident in UK. She can have remedies over such issues as per her
intention was to stop the war and have the healthy and peaceful environment in the country20.
Thus, the posters contains the images which are reflecting the damages to society such as death
17 Freeman, M., 2017. Human rights. John Wiley & Sons.
18 Cole, M. ed., 2017. Education, equality and human rights: issues of gender,'race', sexuality, disability and
social class. Routledge.
19 O’Leary, L., 2017. Introduction. In Employment and Labour Relations Law in the Premier League, NBA
and International Rugby Union (pp. 1-18). TMC Asser Press, The Hague.
20 Piacentini, L. and Katz, E., 2017. Carceral framing of human rights in Russian prisons. Punishment &
Society. 19(2). pp.221-239.
5

of many people in such political issues which will be treated as demoralising the army of the
nation.
The motive of the Human Right Act is to protecting the rights of a person in terms with
having any issues at the workplace, privacy, Family life, property, eduction, employment,
religion, race and sexuality. Therefore, the motive of government is to facilitate the most healthy
and pleasant environment to the citizens and they have right to rise their voice against any
unlawful or illegal issue faced by them21. In consideration with the same Nadia can apply for the
human rights in the court and protect herself on the basis of self defence. She can apply for
having the fair jurisdiction and judgements over the poster placed by her on the walls. She will
be penalised as well as punished for breaching the norm of SOB act. On which she has to make
payment to the court about whatever the penalty is for and has to suffer the punishments which
were being enacted over such obstacles22. This case is relevant with the case of Al Jedda v
SSHD23.
21 Bowring, B., 2017. England’s terror of the French Revolution: the historical roots of resistance to the
rights of man and the case against the Human Rights Act.
22 Swanson, D. M., Yu, H. L. and Mouroutsou, S., 2017. Inclusion as Ethics, Equity and/or Human Rights?
Spotlighting School Mathematics Practices in Scotland. Social Inclusion. 5(3). pp.172-182.
23 ECHR Grand Chamber: Case of Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom
6

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
https://ckstudentblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/is-the-united-kingdom-parliament-still-
sovereign/
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/9/1/132/902271
https://themarketmogul.com/parliamentary-sovereignty-vs-british-courts/
https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/echr-al-jedda-v-uk
https://rightsinfo.org/stories/its-about-control/
http://www.nihrc.org/about-human-rights
7