The relationship between entrepreneurial venture financing and the Term Paper

The relationship between entrepreneurial venture financing and the life cycle of a venture - Term Paper Example In the final stages i.e. at the maturity stage the businesses make use of more traditional sources like issue of additional equity or internally generated funds for financing the expansionary programs. Introduction The word ‘life cycle’ in the context of ventures is used in reference to the various stages of its evolution. The initial stages begin with the commencement of the new venture in the form of efforts and intentions of the nascent organization. This stage is accompanied by the procurement of requisite non-financial and financial resources. Here it is important to highlight that finance forms the ‘backbone’ of every venture. Even the most successful business plans may not eventually be carried out in the event of fund shortage. However, the level and form of financing required for each stage of the business is different. In the initial stages when the entrepreneur has just chalked out the plan for the initiation of the venture some amount of funds ar e required for assessing the viability and financial feasibility of the proposed venture. This is a part of the early stage financing required by the business. The fund that puts the business in operational mode is referred to as ‘start up capital’. The next stage of financing is for meeting the development or expansionary needs of the business (Parker, 2006, p.1). Problem Statement- The venture life cycle has an impact on the financing pattern of the business venture. In this paper it will be shown how the financing needs of the business is aligned with the various stages such that the entrepreneur can maximise the value of the business venture. Importance of paper- The paper shows that the various stages of business require varying sources of financing. While in the initial stages it may not be possible for a newly formed business to seek for outside equity or lending. In such instances the entrepreneur of the business has to arrange for funds from internal or known s ources like family or friends. Again after this the business reaches the development and the growth stage. During these stages the business can seek for external sources like equity capital or venture funds. At the same time it can tap the banks and financial institutions for loans and overdraft facilities. At the maturity stage the business may not have to rely on outside sources as the retained earnings generated over the years can be used for financing the future growth and expansionary plans of the business. This paper manly highlights the importance and the use of various avenues of funds at the various business stages. This can give an entrepreneur an idea as to how to meet the funding requirements or which sources to be tapped at each stage of the business. Hypotheses- This paper assumes that the sources of funds to be employed in the various stages of the business also vary as per the strength and longevity of each stage. Methodology The paper is based on the secondary sourc es of data. To highlight the various types of funding requireme

Starbucks - Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Starbucks - - Case Study Example Additionally, the paper will describe the role of sustainable development in Starbuck’s approach to social responsibility. The Starbuck 2003 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Titled â€Å"Living Our Values,† defines the coffee retailer’s approach to social responsibility. The approach focuses on partners, diversity, coffee product, customers, community and environment, and profitability. The three concepts of social responsibility are profit responsibility, stakeholder responsibility, and societal responsibility (Kerin et al, 2010). In relation to profit responsibility, a company should maximize profits for the stakeholders without taking advantage of supply shortages to charge very high prices on products. Starbuck’s observes profit responsibility by selling its product via supermarkets, the company’s retail shops, and by extension taking the Starbuck’s coffee experience to the employer’s offices. It uses low profit grocery market segments, retail business cafes, coffee kiosks, high profit margin kiosks, and corporate cafeterias to reinforce and serve its products using high-class experience. It embraces supplier diversity, pays its coffee suppliers well, and conserves their environment. These measures guarantees high and well deserved profits. Where, profits are significant for the growth of Starbuck’s, profitability is placed last as it depends on adherence to partners, diversity, coffee/product, customers, community and environment principles. In relation to stakeholder’s responsibility, a company focuses on stakeholders that can contribute to the achievement of its objectives. Indeed, the coffee retail shop encourages its partners, to stick to the mission statement, comment on deviations from Starbuck 2003 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, participate, and analyze management decisions. In addition, Starbuck’s accords

Hamlet Essay Example for Free

Hamlet Essay Shakespeares Hamlet remains at the pinnacle of high culture texts and the cannon as one of the most iconic texts in the modern world. Hamlet is a deeply philosophical in which grapples with metaphysical questions- existential in nature that underpins the human ethos. It is through the highly charged language, textual integrity and use of meta-theatrical techniques that ensure the plays modernity and continuing resonance in society through multiple perspectives. Hamlet is a revenge tragedy play that reveals the conflicting social paradigms of patriarchal Elizabethan society in transition, wherein the forces of reformation and renaissance were usurping the older world of medieval feudalism and hierarchy. The play also reflects the concerns of a society that questioned their social roles particularly the divine and moral standards of the church and crown. The play captures the spirit of inquiry through its opening question whos there? revealing the plays search for identity and truth- both literal and metaphorical- in which Hamlet drives at the moral centre of the play. Hamlet is essentially a grand narrative that follows the strictly controlled linear revenge tragedian format with Prince Hamlet as the avenging tragic hero. His role is indeed profound and equivocal; he questions the nature of freewill whilst seeking affirmation through the ghost to avenge his fathers murder. Yet it is by Hamlets pivotal flaws of hesitancy and uncertainty that he authors his own downfall and those innocents around him. Shakespeare reflects the conflicting values of his context through Hamlets statement o cursed spite that I was ever born to set it right he is torn between conflicting notions of medieval paganism and vengeance opposed to Christian humanism that demanded restraint and rationality. Yet it is through Hamlets melancholy and his questioning of humanity that the play becomes highly philosophical and personal drawing audiences in with the beauty of poetic language. Perspectives of Hamlet such as Kenneth Brannaghs 1996 film production and Marion Pots 2008 Bell Shakespeare theatre production demonstrate the plays continuing iconic status in society and its seamless ability to be re-appropriated into new contexts and perspectives. Brannaghs perspective of Hamlet is traditional, yet he stresses the conflict between truth and appearance through his stage design. The film depicts C19th castle of Elsinore, resplendent in its colourful pageantry, overpowering pristine white and extravagant costuming. Brannaghs implementation of secret hallways, mirrors and Hamlets dark clothing is juxtaposed to this lavish world that metaphorically reveals the entrenched and pervasive corruption that underlie this facade. Shakespeare stresses this notion through use of recurring extended metaphor in the rank, vile and un-weeded garden. This conflict between truth and appearance is illuminated in Act 3 Scene 2 via the play within the play. The acting on all levels in this scene causes the play to become highly reflexive and meta-theatrical, audiences are alerted to its constructed nature as twere a mirror up to nature yet also cautioning audiences over the masks that are constructed by people to disguise truth. The scenes reflexive and modernist techniques allow us to contemplate upon the nature of appearances demonstrating the iconic relevancy of the play. Brendan Cowells depiction of Hamlet in Pots Sydney production is that seemingly of a highly intellectual yet rebellious C21st college student. Cowell plays the role ironically subverting the worlds of adults through wit, puns and sarcasm that draws audiences into the plays self described comedic and cathartic nature. Potts perspective of Hamlet invokes a feeling of moral malaise through stage design. The use of worn dated clothing and seemingly dark decaying walls that seep water- hinting at underlying corruption and subverting the cleansing connotations of water. The presence of a large dominating spiral staircase gives the play a subterranean and stygian atmosphere that effectively alerts audiences towards looming mortality and hidden truth. In Act 2 Scene 2 Hamlet reflects upon the majesty of man- oh what piece of work is man- yet this is ironically juxtaposed to his own self disillusionment. Shakespeares movement from iambic pentameter to prose reflects Hamlets own loss of mirth; whilst also demonstrating the power of Shakespeares use of textual integrity to allow audiences to sympathise and connect to Hamlet. Hamlets paradoxical nature is revealed through evocative imagery concerning the goodness of humanity how like an angel yet this is subverted by Hamlets melancholy in his role as the avenger. Shakespeare juxtaposes this speech to his most iconic soliloquy to be or not to be in Act 3 Sc 1; the balanced opening thesis demonstrates our fear of the eternal mystery beyond death as opposed to the continuance of the hardships in life. The poetic and transcendent nature of Shakespeares language is demonstrated through his iconic sustained metaphor of death as the undiscovered country . This metaphor gives death a normality yet we are forever cautioned away by its eternal mystery. The soliloquy is highly evocative, subverting deaths connotations by giving it a tantalising quality through its ability to give us sleep, perchance dream. The speech causes audiences to reflect upon death, challenging our perceptions of life, whilst demonstrating Hamlets frustration at his own inaction and weakness that ironically drive the philosophical nature of the play. Shakespeares mediation on mortality continues in Act 5 Sc 1 which employs use of black humour and satire to subvert deaths connotations whilst providing comedic relief through the gravediggers banter. Hamlets monologue with Yorricks skull illuminates the finality and inexorable nature of mortality. The scene moves from satire and comedy to increasing seriousness with dramatic irony at Hamlets lack of knowledge of Ophelias death. The scene is juxtaposed to the entry of the coffin, taking on a deeper poignancy as it illuminates the irony of Hamlets feigned insanity as opposed to Ophelias true madness that resulted in her tragic demise causing audiences to reflect upon the nature of existence and fate. Ultimately Shakespeare affirms the existence of destiny at the end of the play through Hamlets statement there is a divinity that shapes our ends, coming down upon the religious paradigms of his day. Hamlet is a play challenges and questions our conventional paradigms and beliefs through Shakespeares mastery of literary technique, textual integrity and Hamlets contemplations. As a result the play examines universal concerns of humanity ensuring the plays continuing iconic status in society.

Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit

Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit POn 23 June 2016, the UK government held a referendum to decide whether the country should leave the EU. The majority citizens voted for Brexit (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) with a turnout of 72%, however, they thoroughly fell behind in Scottish and Northern Irish tallies. Be that as it may, the Government was still expected to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as soon as possible, without the express permission from Parliament. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, had promised that he would follow through with the outcome, even if that meant leaving the EU (BBC, 2017).[1] However, the situation was not as straightforward as presented by the â€Å"Leave† campaign. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty meant that the referendum result had no legal binding. Therefore, the Prime Minister and government were free to ignore the referendum result if they saw fit. Furthermore, some argued that the government had no right to trigger a leave; only Parliament could do so, as a result of the principle parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).[2] This paper discusses the topic of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, particularly in the wake of Brexit, and briefly touches on some social consequences had Parliamentary Sovereignty not been respected. The structure of this paper is therefore as follows: First, Section 1 briefly discusses the history behind parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. Then, Section 2 discusses the Miller Case, a case where the High Court upheld parliamentary sovereignty in the wake of Brexit. Finally, Section 3 explores the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, an Act of Parliament that grants the government power to leave the EU. 1. The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty The idea of parliamentary sovereignty was conceived circa the Case of Proclamations in 1608 (Barnett, 2017).[3] This was a court decision that reduced the power of Monarchs. Essentially, the courts decided that moving forward, Kings and Queens would have to obtain Parliament’s permission to change laws. Specifically, the Case of Proclamations stated that â€Å"the King cannot change any part of the common law [†¦.] without parliament† (House of Lords, 1610).[4] Following this, the English Civil War occurred 1642–1651, where Parliamentarians fought against Royalists for ideals such as parliamentary sovereignty. The Parliamentarians were victorious on such occasion and thus began the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688, which established parliamentary sovereignty in England (Goldsworthy, 2010).[5] Then, in 1689, parliamentary sovereignty was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Similarly to the Case of Proclamations, this bill requires Monarchs to obtain pe rmission from Parliament before changing laws. Specifically, the Bill of Rights said, â€Å"Suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal† (Parliament of England, 1689).[6] In modern day Britain, Parliament consists of three main decision making bodies: the Sovereign (the monarch, i.e. the King or Queen), the House of Lords (i.e. unelected members of parliament), and the House of Commons (i.e. elected Members of Parliament, or MPs). These three bodies form the highest power in the UK. The fact that Parliament has supreme power is known as parliamentary sovereignty. In the words of Legal commentator Albert Dicey, parliamentary sovereignty gives Parliament the power â€Å"to make or unmake any law whatever† (Dicey, 1915, p.3).[7] The only limits to parliamentary sovereignty are those that Parliament sets itself (Bradley, 2011).[8] An example of this self-enforced limit is Parliament’s subordination of the UK to the EU. This came into effect in 1972, when Parliament signed the European Communities Act, under which the UK was compelled to follow EU law (Barber, 2011).[9] Parliament also has the power to lift its self-imposed limits. For exampl e, Brexit means that Parliament will repeal the European Communities Act, thus ending the EU’s control over the UK (Supreme Court, 2017).[10] It is also important to note that only Parliament can repeal Parliamentary acts. Essentially, the government and Queen cannot repeal Acts of Parliament without Parliament’s permission. 23. Parliamentary sovereignty has been a significant part of many cases and has repeatedly been called upon during cases of importance. A quote from Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262 at para. [9] encapsulates this significance perfectly: The bedrock of the British constitution is the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament. 2. The Miller Case Following the Brexit referendum in June 2016, Times journalist David Pannick noted that the government could not trigger Article 50 by itself; the government would have to first obtain permission from Parliament (Pannick, 2016).[11] This was because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Specifically, Pannick noted that Parliament had agreed to the European Communities Act in 1972, and because only Parliament can reverse its own decisions, and therefore only Parliament can repeal the act and withdraw from the EU. He also drew attention to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which says, â€Å"any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements† (EU, 2007).[12] Pannick argued that since parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional requirement, the EU would not accept the UK’s withdrawal without parliamentary approval (Pannick, 2016).[13] Theresa May was dismissive of these claims. She asserted that they were a tactic to delay Brexit and subvert democracy (BBC, 2017).[14] She also stated that the government did not need parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 (Freehills, 2016).[15] Notably, Theresa May stated, â€Å"It is up to the Government to trigger Article 50 and the Government alone† (BBC, 2017).[16] Many disagreed with Theresa May, as they believed that withdrawal from the EU without Parliament’s permission would be unlawful (Weale, 2017).[17] Several members of the public felt so strongly about this that took legal action against the government. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, or the Miller case as it was known informally, was heard in the High Court of Justice. Miller argued that Parliamentary involvement was necessary because: â€Å"By enacting the 1972 Act, Parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred the same upon (what are now) the EU Institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone [†¦] without Parliamentary consent.† (Supreme Court, 2016, p.21)[18] In plain English, Miller’s argument was that considering Parliament surrendered power to the EU in 1972, only Parliament could take this power back (Supreme Court, 2016).[19] The government disagreed with this claim. They believed that once the UK leaves the EU, the European Communities Act 1972 would simply cease to apply, because former treaties would not exist (Supreme Court, 2016; Weale, 2017).[20] Furthermore, the government argued that they had the royal prerogative to override parliamentary sovereignty. The royal prerogative is an old power that allows governments to make decisions without Parliament, in exceptional circumstances (Freehills, 2016).[21] The government also noted a rule that â€Å"the making and unmaking of treaties is [†¦] within the competence of the government† (Supreme Court, 2017, p.84)[22] The case was debated in the High Court for several weeks until the High Court delivered its verdict on 3 November 2016. The High Court ruled in favour of Miller: the government had to obtain parliamentary authority to trigger Article 50. The High Court had agreed with Miller’s arguments about the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Supreme Court, 2017).[23] The court explained that because of parliamentary sovereignty, only Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act. This is because only Parliament can repeal an Act of Parliament. The High Court also explained that Article 50 would nullify several rights of UK citizens (Supreme Court, 2017).[24] These rights included the right of UK citizens to live and work freely in other EU countries, and the right to 20 days paid holiday under the Working Time Directive 2003. Parliament put these rights in place when it passed the European Communities Act in 1972. The High Court also ruled against the government’s right to use the royal prerogative (Supreme Court, 2017).[25] To explain why, the High Court cited the case of Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 101. This case involved use of the royal prerogative. Lord Reid, dismissed the royal prerogative as a â€Å"relic of a past age† (House of Lords, 1965, p.101).[26] Lord Reid also explained that the royal prerogative is â€Å"only available for a case not covered by statute† (p.101).[27] Typically, the royal prerogative is only for situations such as declaring war, dissolving parliament and governing colonies (Wade, 1961).[28] So, in Miller’s case, the High Court explained that a royal prerogative was inappropriate for triggering Brexit. Therefore, the government did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval. The government was unhappy with the High Court’s decision and chose to appeal it, and as a result the case went to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the government’s appeal, citing the same reason as the High Court (Supreme Court, 2017).[29] Essentially, the court explained, the government in 1972 needed Parliament’s approval to sign the 1972 Accession Treaty. This meant that present-day government also needed Parliament’s approval to repeal this treaty (Supreme Court, 2017).[30] Of course, those in the â€Å"Leave† camp were outraged with the High Court’s decision. Like Theresa May, they believed that Parliament was attempting to obstruct the progression of Brexit. A Ukip donor accused the High Court of declaring war on British democracy (Maguire, 2016).[31] In reality, however, this was not the case; the High Court was merely upholding the British constitution as intended, by honouring the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017)[32] and following the Rule of Law. Importance of the Rule of Law. On 29 March 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council to notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Unit and the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty. Brexit is no longer a hypothetical question. It is a concrete fact – it is happening. An issue that has been brought to the front is the belief that the Government has the power, and right, to act on Brexit without Parliaments involvement. This is even more troubling as the very constitution is built upon Parliamentary sovereignty. The issue of human rights comes up as it can be dangerous, in a country where the legislature is mostly under the control of the executive, to leave it solely up to a sovereign Parliament with an absent constitution. If the Parliament can be avoided altogether, this can lead to an even worse situation overall and so highlights how important it was for the Supreme Court in Miller to stand up for and defend the power of Parliament over the executive.   Brexit is one of the most influential and far-reaching changes to the international social and political landscapes today. Brexit will shape Britain, and the international community, for years to come. It is for this reason that it is undeniable that this process should be founded in the rule of law. To comprehend the importance of the rule of law we must give it a clear definition. A well-known definition is that of Lord Bingham: â€Å"that all persons and authorities in the State, whether public or private, should be bound by and be entitled to the benefit of all laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts.† The Venice Commission has identified the following 8 components of the rule of law: ‘(1) Accessibility of the law (that it be intelligible, clear and predictable); (2) Questions of legal right should be normally decided by law and not discretion; (3) Equality before the law; (4) Power must be exercised lawfully, fairly and reasonably; (5) Human rights must be protected; (6) Means must be provided to resolve disputes without undue cost or delay; (7) Trials must be fair, and (8) Compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as well as in national law.’ The importance of the rule of law is recognised in multiple international documents. For example, the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights notes the importance of the rule of law in protecting human rights. The Treaty on European Union also couples ‘the rule of law and respect for human rights’. It is this human rights element that the remained of this short essay will focus on. Brexit will reform the social landscape of Britain and Europe. It is of paramount importance that the rule of law is respected in this reformation to ensure that fundamental rights, particularly those of minorities and vulnerable individuals, continue to be respected. This is especially true given that there has been much debate as to whether the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia and racism. Research has shown that there was an increase in support for far-right groups during the Brexit campaign and following the murder of Jo Cox. There has also been an alleged escalation in hate crime targeting migrant communities as well an increase in anti-immigration rhetoric. The Brexit vote, coupled with Trump, and the rise of the far-right, summons fears surrounding the polarization of politics and the creeping rise of extremism. With this in mind, it is quite chilling to consider Lord Bingham’s thoughts on a system which is not founded on the rule of law: â€Å"The hallmark of a regime which flouts the rule of law are, alas, all too familiar: the midnight knock on the door, the sudden disappearance, the show trial, the subjection of prisoners to genetic experiments, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and the concentration camp, the gas chamber, the practice of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the waging of aggressive wars.† In a time when international politics is becoming increasingly unclear and strained and communities are fraught with increased fear and racial tensions, now more than ever, the rule of law and the importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty must be respected. As noted by the Prime Minister, the task before the British nation is momentous but it should not be insurmountable. Britain post-Brexit has an unclear future and an undefined path. By adhering to the rule of law, the certainty, stability and protection that it provides will ensure that this difficult task is negotiated with the utmost respect for all peoples and their inalienable human rights. 3. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Given that the Supreme Court had dismissed the government’s appeal, the government now needed Parliament’s approval to trigger Article 50. In order to receive this approval, the government introduced a new bill in Parliament. This bill was called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.Essentially, this bill would give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50. However, Parliament had the power to reject the bill if it felt appropriate. This was again because of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).[33] Despite that most voters voted ‘Leave’ in the referendum, this result was not legally binding and Parliament could ignore the referendum result. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the ultimate power rests with Parliament, not the public nor the results of referendums. The public only have the power to elect MPs, and once elected, MPs can go against the wishes of their constituents and make their own decisions if they want to. MPs can even go against a referendum result, despite that this might cause great anger with the British public. As Dicey stated, â€Å"the electors can in the long run always enforce their will† (Dicey, 1915).[34] However,   all three decision making bodies of Parliament – the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons – approved the Notification of Withdrawal Act (BBC, 2017).[35] The Queen gave the final green flag on 16 March 2017. This gave the Prime Minister the power trigger to Article 50 and inform the EU of the UK’s withdrawal. The government officially triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, when a UK envoy delivered a letter of withdrawal to the President of the European Council (BBC, 2017).[36] The issue of parliamentary sovereignty then took a back seat as the UK began exit negotiations with the EU. Of the 170,000 statutory instruments that have been sent to Parliament in the last 65 years, only seventeen have been rejected, and any substantive debate over individual instruments is a rare occurrence. Responsibility has been delegated for regulation both to the government and the European Union. For this reason, possibly up to sixty per cent of UK law may be derived from EU law in some way. Furthermore, for many years, legislative and technical expertise in the pertinent areas have again been delegated to Brussels. This leaves domestic civil servants under prepared to handle the of important decisions that will need to be made in the coming years. David Allen Green’s analysis is difficult to refute: â€Å"under the cloak of the referendum result there will be a power grab by Whitehall from Westminster. Those rejoicing at â€Å"taking back control† should be careful what they wish for. The executive is, as usual, wanting to take control away from Parliament.† On many occasions, it has been asserted that because the ‘people have spoken’ through the referendum, it gives the executive the right to push onward without the consent of Parliament. On many occasions, it has been asserted that because the ‘people have spoken’ through the referendum, it gives the executive the right to push onward without the consent of Parliament. Does this mean that the claims of direct democracy, in the form of the referendum, trump the claims of Parliamentary representative democracy, with the paradoxical effect of giving more power to the executive? The greater part have affirmed that referenda are in and of themselves a product of Parliamentary authority and must accordingly rely on the statute which enables them. The 2015 EU referendum Act only called for the referendum to take place, without establishing how to approach it or the potential consequences. ‘Where, as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a change in the law of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change in the law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits, namely through Parliamentary legislation.’ The actual political importance of a referendum is not subverted however. What is does assert is the basic dogma that, in a democracy, the people can speak through their representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless, direct democracy cannot be operationalised by giving undiluted power to the executive. 4. Conclusion This paper has discussed parliamentary sovereignty in the UK in the wake of Brexit. First, Section 1 introduced the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. This section explained that parliamentary sovereignty goes back to the 17th century, when the courts first enshrined the principle in the Bill of Rights. The section also drew attention to the rule that only Parliament can undo Acts of Parliament. I then discussed the Miller case in Section 2. In this case, members of the public argued that the government required Parliaments approval to leave the EU. The courts decided in favour of Millers side; that explained that Parliament was needed to trigger to Article 50 due to parliamentary sovereignty. The decision was controversial because some people saw it as an attempt to subvert the referendum result. Finally, Section 3 discussed the European Union Act 2017. This act that demonstrated the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The government essentially asked Parliament for permission to trigger Article 50, and Parliament agreed by passing the act. In conclusion, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty was tested in the wake of Brexit. Ultimately however, courts respected the principle and gave Parliament the ultimate power over whether Britain should leave the EU. However, the future is still uncertain, as no-one yet knows what Brexit will look like. Perhaps a future Parliament will reverse the Brexit decision. After all, parliamentary sovereignty gives future Parliaments the right to reverse the decisions of previous Parliaments. What needs to be addressed is the potential consequneces that the referendum may have on Palimentary sovernety and represesentitive democracy throughout the UK. For this reason, Parliment needs to continue to be a central part of the process despite any predetermined preferences from the Government itself. Parliamentary sovereignty must remain intact as, for the many reasons stated, it is an integral part of the United Kingdom’s constitution, because its deliberate and representative functions and ability to hold the executive to account are defining features of the United Kingdom’s enduring constitution. 5. References Barber, N.W., 2011. The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(1), pp.144–154. Barnett, H., 2017. Constitutional and administrative law, Taylor & Francis. BBC, 2017. BBC News website. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news [Accessed July 14, 2017]. Bradley, A., 2011. The Sovereignty of Parliament–Form or Substance? The Changing Constitution, 23, pp.54–56. Dicey, A.V., 1915. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 8th ed., Liberty Classics. EU, 2007. Treaty on European Union, Freehills, H.S., 2016. Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU. Lexology. Available at: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f43e102f-ea09-4449-b781-a35ecfe628fe [Accessed July 13, 2017]. Goldsworthy, J., 2010. Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates, Cambridge University Press. House of Lords, 1965. Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75, House of Lords, 1610. Proclamations, Case of [1610] EWHC KB J22, Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html. Maguire, P., 2016. Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy: split view on judges’ ruling. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/brexit-this-is-what-sovereignty-looks-like#img-1 [Accessed July 13, 2017]. Pannick, D., 2016. Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament. The Times. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3. Parliament of England, 1689. English Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, 2016. Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†), Available at: http://www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/139459-UKSC-2016-0196-Skeleton-for-Expat-Interveners-final-written-case-2.pdf. Supreme Court, 2017. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, London. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf. Wade, W., 1961. Administrative Law, London: Oxford University Press. Weale, A., 2017. The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit. The Political Quarterly, 88(2), pp.170–181. [1] BBC [2] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 177 [3] Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and administrative law (Taylor & Francis 2017) [4] House of Lords, Case of [1610] EWHC KB J22 [5] Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates (Cambridge University Press 2010) [6] Parliament of England, English Bill of Rights [7] Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915) [8] Anthony Bradley, ‘The Sovereignty of Parliament–Form or Substance?’ (2011) The Changing Constitution 54 [9] Nicholas Barber, ‘The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty’ (2011) International Journal of Constitutional Law 149 [10] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [11] David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament [12] EU, Treaty on European Union [13] David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament [14] BBC [15] Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU [16] BBC [17] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 180 [18] Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†) 21 [19] Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†) [20] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 180 [21] Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU [22] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [23] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [24] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [25] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 85 [26] House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 101 [27] House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 101 [28] William Wade, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press 1961) [29] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [30] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [31] Patrick Maguire, Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy: split view on judges’ ruling [32] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 174 [33] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 174 [34] Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915) [35] BBC [36] BBC Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit POn 23 June 2016, the UK government held a referendum to decide whether the country should leave the EU. The majority citizens voted for Brexit (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) with a turnout of 72%, however, they thoroughly fell behind in Scottish and Northern Irish tallies. Be that as it may, the Government was still expected to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as soon as possible, without the express permission from Parliament. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, had promised that he would follow through with the outcome, even if that meant leaving the EU (BBC, 2017).[1] However, the situation was not as straightforward as presented by the â€Å"Leave† campaign. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty meant that the referendum result had no legal binding. Therefore, the Prime Minister and government were free to ignore the referendum result if they saw fit. Furthermore, some argued that the government had no right to trigger a leave; only Parliament could do so, as a result of the principle parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).[2] This paper discusses the topic of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, particularly in the wake of Brexit, and briefly touches on some social consequences had Parliamentary Sovereignty not been respected. The structure of this paper is therefore as follows: First, Section 1 briefly discusses the history behind parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. Then, Section 2 discusses the Miller Case, a case where the High Court upheld parliamentary sovereignty in the wake of Brexit. Finally, Section 3 explores the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, an Act of Parliament that grants the government power to leave the EU. 1. The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty The idea of parliamentary sovereignty was conceived circa the Case of Proclamations in 1608 (Barnett, 2017).[3] This was a court decision that reduced the power of Monarchs. Essentially, the courts decided that moving forward, Kings and Queens would have to obtain Parliament’s permission to change laws. Specifically, the Case of Proclamations stated that â€Å"the King cannot change any part of the common law [†¦.] without parliament† (House of Lords, 1610).[4] Following this, the English Civil War occurred 1642–1651, where Parliamentarians fought against Royalists for ideals such as parliamentary sovereignty. The Parliamentarians were victorious on such occasion and thus began the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688, which established parliamentary sovereignty in England (Goldsworthy, 2010).[5] Then, in 1689, parliamentary sovereignty was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Similarly to the Case of Proclamations, this bill requires Monarchs to obtain pe rmission from Parliament before changing laws. Specifically, the Bill of Rights said, â€Å"Suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal† (Parliament of England, 1689).[6] In modern day Britain, Parliament consists of three main decision making bodies: the Sovereign (the monarch, i.e. the King or Queen), the House of Lords (i.e. unelected members of parliament), and the House of Commons (i.e. elected Members of Parliament, or MPs). These three bodies form the highest power in the UK. The fact that Parliament has supreme power is known as parliamentary sovereignty. In the words of Legal commentator Albert Dicey, parliamentary sovereignty gives Parliament the power â€Å"to make or unmake any law whatever† (Dicey, 1915, p.3).[7] The only limits to parliamentary sovereignty are those that Parliament sets itself (Bradley, 2011).[8] An example of this self-enforced limit is Parliament’s subordination of the UK to the EU. This came into effect in 1972, when Parliament signed the European Communities Act, under which the UK was compelled to follow EU law (Barber, 2011).[9] Parliament also has the power to lift its self-imposed limits. For exampl e, Brexit means that Parliament will repeal the European Communities Act, thus ending the EU’s control over the UK (Supreme Court, 2017).[10] It is also important to note that only Parliament can repeal Parliamentary acts. Essentially, the government and Queen cannot repeal Acts of Parliament without Parliament’s permission. 23. Parliamentary sovereignty has been a significant part of many cases and has repeatedly been called upon during cases of importance. A quote from Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262 at para. [9] encapsulates this significance perfectly: The bedrock of the British constitution is the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament. 2. The Miller Case Following the Brexit referendum in June 2016, Times journalist David Pannick noted that the government could not trigger Article 50 by itself; the government would have to first obtain permission from Parliament (Pannick, 2016).[11] This was because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Specifically, Pannick noted that Parliament had agreed to the European Communities Act in 1972, and because only Parliament can reverse its own decisions, and therefore only Parliament can repeal the act and withdraw from the EU. He also drew attention to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which says, â€Å"any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements† (EU, 2007).[12] Pannick argued that since parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional requirement, the EU would not accept the UK’s withdrawal without parliamentary approval (Pannick, 2016).[13] Theresa May was dismissive of these claims. She asserted that they were a tactic to delay Brexit and subvert democracy (BBC, 2017).[14] She also stated that the government did not need parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 (Freehills, 2016).[15] Notably, Theresa May stated, â€Å"It is up to the Government to trigger Article 50 and the Government alone† (BBC, 2017).[16] Many disagreed with Theresa May, as they believed that withdrawal from the EU without Parliament’s permission would be unlawful (Weale, 2017).[17] Several members of the public felt so strongly about this that took legal action against the government. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, or the Miller case as it was known informally, was heard in the High Court of Justice. Miller argued that Parliamentary involvement was necessary because: â€Å"By enacting the 1972 Act, Parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred the same upon (what are now) the EU Institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone [†¦] without Parliamentary consent.† (Supreme Court, 2016, p.21)[18] In plain English, Miller’s argument was that considering Parliament surrendered power to the EU in 1972, only Parliament could take this power back (Supreme Court, 2016).[19] The government disagreed with this claim. They believed that once the UK leaves the EU, the European Communities Act 1972 would simply cease to apply, because former treaties would not exist (Supreme Court, 2016; Weale, 2017).[20] Furthermore, the government argued that they had the royal prerogative to override parliamentary sovereignty. The royal prerogative is an old power that allows governments to make decisions without Parliament, in exceptional circumstances (Freehills, 2016).[21] The government also noted a rule that â€Å"the making and unmaking of treaties is [†¦] within the competence of the government† (Supreme Court, 2017, p.84)[22] The case was debated in the High Court for several weeks until the High Court delivered its verdict on 3 November 2016. The High Court ruled in favour of Miller: the government had to obtain parliamentary authority to trigger Article 50. The High Court had agreed with Miller’s arguments about the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Supreme Court, 2017).[23] The court explained that because of parliamentary sovereignty, only Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act. This is because only Parliament can repeal an Act of Parliament. The High Court also explained that Article 50 would nullify several rights of UK citizens (Supreme Court, 2017).[24] These rights included the right of UK citizens to live and work freely in other EU countries, and the right to 20 days paid holiday under the Working Time Directive 2003. Parliament put these rights in place when it passed the European Communities Act in 1972. The High Court also ruled against the government’s right to use the royal prerogative (Supreme Court, 2017).[25] To explain why, the High Court cited the case of Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 101. This case involved use of the royal prerogative. Lord Reid, dismissed the royal prerogative as a â€Å"relic of a past age† (House of Lords, 1965, p.101).[26] Lord Reid also explained that the royal prerogative is â€Å"only available for a case not covered by statute† (p.101).[27] Typically, the royal prerogative is only for situations such as declaring war, dissolving parliament and governing colonies (Wade, 1961).[28] So, in Miller’s case, the High Court explained that a royal prerogative was inappropriate for triggering Brexit. Therefore, the government did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval. The government was unhappy with the High Court’s decision and chose to appeal it, and as a result the case went to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the government’s appeal, citing the same reason as the High Court (Supreme Court, 2017).[29] Essentially, the court explained, the government in 1972 needed Parliament’s approval to sign the 1972 Accession Treaty. This meant that present-day government also needed Parliament’s approval to repeal this treaty (Supreme Court, 2017).[30] Of course, those in the â€Å"Leave† camp were outraged with the High Court’s decision. Like Theresa May, they believed that Parliament was attempting to obstruct the progression of Brexit. A Ukip donor accused the High Court of declaring war on British democracy (Maguire, 2016).[31] In reality, however, this was not the case; the High Court was merely upholding the British constitution as intended, by honouring the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017)[32] and following the Rule of Law. Importance of the Rule of Law. On 29 March 2017, the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council to notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Unit and the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty. Brexit is no longer a hypothetical question. It is a concrete fact – it is happening. An issue that has been brought to the front is the belief that the Government has the power, and right, to act on Brexit without Parliaments involvement. This is even more troubling as the very constitution is built upon Parliamentary sovereignty. The issue of human rights comes up as it can be dangerous, in a country where the legislature is mostly under the control of the executive, to leave it solely up to a sovereign Parliament with an absent constitution. If the Parliament can be avoided altogether, this can lead to an even worse situation overall and so highlights how important it was for the Supreme Court in Miller to stand up for and defend the power of Parliament over the executive.   Brexit is one of the most influential and far-reaching changes to the international social and political landscapes today. Brexit will shape Britain, and the international community, for years to come. It is for this reason that it is undeniable that this process should be founded in the rule of law. To comprehend the importance of the rule of law we must give it a clear definition. A well-known definition is that of Lord Bingham: â€Å"that all persons and authorities in the State, whether public or private, should be bound by and be entitled to the benefit of all laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts.† The Venice Commission has identified the following 8 components of the rule of law: ‘(1) Accessibility of the law (that it be intelligible, clear and predictable); (2) Questions of legal right should be normally decided by law and not discretion; (3) Equality before the law; (4) Power must be exercised lawfully, fairly and reasonably; (5) Human rights must be protected; (6) Means must be provided to resolve disputes without undue cost or delay; (7) Trials must be fair, and (8) Compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as well as in national law.’ The importance of the rule of law is recognised in multiple international documents. For example, the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights notes the importance of the rule of law in protecting human rights. The Treaty on European Union also couples ‘the rule of law and respect for human rights’. It is this human rights element that the remained of this short essay will focus on. Brexit will reform the social landscape of Britain and Europe. It is of paramount importance that the rule of law is respected in this reformation to ensure that fundamental rights, particularly those of minorities and vulnerable individuals, continue to be respected. This is especially true given that there has been much debate as to whether the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia and racism. Research has shown that there was an increase in support for far-right groups during the Brexit campaign and following the murder of Jo Cox. There has also been an alleged escalation in hate crime targeting migrant communities as well an increase in anti-immigration rhetoric. The Brexit vote, coupled with Trump, and the rise of the far-right, summons fears surrounding the polarization of politics and the creeping rise of extremism. With this in mind, it is quite chilling to consider Lord Bingham’s thoughts on a system which is not founded on the rule of law: â€Å"The hallmark of a regime which flouts the rule of law are, alas, all too familiar: the midnight knock on the door, the sudden disappearance, the show trial, the subjection of prisoners to genetic experiments, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and the concentration camp, the gas chamber, the practice of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the waging of aggressive wars.† In a time when international politics is becoming increasingly unclear and strained and communities are fraught with increased fear and racial tensions, now more than ever, the rule of law and the importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty must be respected. As noted by the Prime Minister, the task before the British nation is momentous but it should not be insurmountable. Britain post-Brexit has an unclear future and an undefined path. By adhering to the rule of law, the certainty, stability and protection that it provides will ensure that this difficult task is negotiated with the utmost respect for all peoples and their inalienable human rights. 3. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Given that the Supreme Court had dismissed the government’s appeal, the government now needed Parliament’s approval to trigger Article 50. In order to receive this approval, the government introduced a new bill in Parliament. This bill was called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.Essentially, this bill would give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50. However, Parliament had the power to reject the bill if it felt appropriate. This was again because of parliamentary sovereignty (Weale, 2017).[33] Despite that most voters voted ‘Leave’ in the referendum, this result was not legally binding and Parliament could ignore the referendum result. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the ultimate power rests with Parliament, not the public nor the results of referendums. The public only have the power to elect MPs, and once elected, MPs can go against the wishes of their constituents and make their own decisions if they want to. MPs can even go against a referendum result, despite that this might cause great anger with the British public. As Dicey stated, â€Å"the electors can in the long run always enforce their will† (Dicey, 1915).[34] However,   all three decision making bodies of Parliament – the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons – approved the Notification of Withdrawal Act (BBC, 2017).[35] The Queen gave the final green flag on 16 March 2017. This gave the Prime Minister the power trigger to Article 50 and inform the EU of the UK’s withdrawal. The government officially triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, when a UK envoy delivered a letter of withdrawal to the President of the European Council (BBC, 2017).[36] The issue of parliamentary sovereignty then took a back seat as the UK began exit negotiations with the EU. Of the 170,000 statutory instruments that have been sent to Parliament in the last 65 years, only seventeen have been rejected, and any substantive debate over individual instruments is a rare occurrence. Responsibility has been delegated for regulation both to the government and the European Union. For this reason, possibly up to sixty per cent of UK law may be derived from EU law in some way. Furthermore, for many years, legislative and technical expertise in the pertinent areas have again been delegated to Brussels. This leaves domestic civil servants under prepared to handle the of important decisions that will need to be made in the coming years. David Allen Green’s analysis is difficult to refute: â€Å"under the cloak of the referendum result there will be a power grab by Whitehall from Westminster. Those rejoicing at â€Å"taking back control† should be careful what they wish for. The executive is, as usual, wanting to take control away from Parliament.† On many occasions, it has been asserted that because the ‘people have spoken’ through the referendum, it gives the executive the right to push onward without the consent of Parliament. On many occasions, it has been asserted that because the ‘people have spoken’ through the referendum, it gives the executive the right to push onward without the consent of Parliament. Does this mean that the claims of direct democracy, in the form of the referendum, trump the claims of Parliamentary representative democracy, with the paradoxical effect of giving more power to the executive? The greater part have affirmed that referenda are in and of themselves a product of Parliamentary authority and must accordingly rely on the statute which enables them. The 2015 EU referendum Act only called for the referendum to take place, without establishing how to approach it or the potential consequences. ‘Where, as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a change in the law of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change in the law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits, namely through Parliamentary legislation.’ The actual political importance of a referendum is not subverted however. What is does assert is the basic dogma that, in a democracy, the people can speak through their representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless, direct democracy cannot be operationalised by giving undiluted power to the executive. 4. Conclusion This paper has discussed parliamentary sovereignty in the UK in the wake of Brexit. First, Section 1 introduced the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. This section explained that parliamentary sovereignty goes back to the 17th century, when the courts first enshrined the principle in the Bill of Rights. The section also drew attention to the rule that only Parliament can undo Acts of Parliament. I then discussed the Miller case in Section 2. In this case, members of the public argued that the government required Parliaments approval to leave the EU. The courts decided in favour of Millers side; that explained that Parliament was needed to trigger to Article 50 due to parliamentary sovereignty. The decision was controversial because some people saw it as an attempt to subvert the referendum result. Finally, Section 3 discussed the European Union Act 2017. This act that demonstrated the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The government essentially asked Parliament for permission to trigger Article 50, and Parliament agreed by passing the act. In conclusion, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty was tested in the wake of Brexit. Ultimately however, courts respected the principle and gave Parliament the ultimate power over whether Britain should leave the EU. However, the future is still uncertain, as no-one yet knows what Brexit will look like. Perhaps a future Parliament will reverse the Brexit decision. After all, parliamentary sovereignty gives future Parliaments the right to reverse the decisions of previous Parliaments. What needs to be addressed is the potential consequneces that the referendum may have on Palimentary sovernety and represesentitive democracy throughout the UK. For this reason, Parliment needs to continue to be a central part of the process despite any predetermined preferences from the Government itself. Parliamentary sovereignty must remain intact as, for the many reasons stated, it is an integral part of the United Kingdom’s constitution, because its deliberate and representative functions and ability to hold the executive to account are defining features of the United Kingdom’s enduring constitution. 5. References Barber, N.W., 2011. The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(1), pp.144–154. Barnett, H., 2017. Constitutional and administrative law, Taylor & Francis. BBC, 2017. BBC News website. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news [Accessed July 14, 2017]. Bradley, A., 2011. The Sovereignty of Parliament–Form or Substance? The Changing Constitution, 23, pp.54–56. Dicey, A.V., 1915. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 8th ed., Liberty Classics. EU, 2007. Treaty on European Union, Freehills, H.S., 2016. Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU. Lexology. Available at: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f43e102f-ea09-4449-b781-a35ecfe628fe [Accessed July 13, 2017]. Goldsworthy, J., 2010. Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates, Cambridge University Press. House of Lords, 1965. Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75, House of Lords, 1610. Proclamations, Case of [1610] EWHC KB J22, Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html. Maguire, P., 2016. Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy: split view on judges’ ruling. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/brexit-this-is-what-sovereignty-looks-like#img-1 [Accessed July 13, 2017]. Pannick, D., 2016. Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament. The Times. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3. Parliament of England, 1689. English Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, 2016. Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†), Available at: http://www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/139459-UKSC-2016-0196-Skeleton-for-Expat-Interveners-final-written-case-2.pdf. Supreme Court, 2017. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, London. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf. Wade, W., 1961. Administrative Law, London: Oxford University Press. Weale, A., 2017. The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit. The Political Quarterly, 88(2), pp.170–181. [1] BBC [2] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 177 [3] Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and administrative law (Taylor & Francis 2017) [4] House of Lords, Case of [1610] EWHC KB J22 [5] Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates (Cambridge University Press 2010) [6] Parliament of England, English Bill of Rights [7] Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915) [8] Anthony Bradley, ‘The Sovereignty of Parliament–Form or Substance?’ (2011) The Changing Constitution 54 [9] Nicholas Barber, ‘The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty’ (2011) International Journal of Constitutional Law 149 [10] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [11] David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament [12] EU, Treaty on European Union [13] David Pannick, Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament [14] BBC [15] Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU [16] BBC [17] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 180 [18] Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†) 21 [19] Supreme Court, Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Written case for Mr George Birnie & Others (The â€Å"Expat Interveners†) [20] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 180 [21] Herbert Smith Freehills, Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU [22] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [23] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [24] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 84 [25] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 85 [26] House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 101 [27] House of Lords, Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate AC 75 101 [28] William Wade, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press 1961) [29] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [30] Supreme Court, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [31] Patrick Maguire, Seizing our sovereignty or declaring war on democracy: split view on judges’ ruling [32] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 174 [33] Albert Weale, ‘The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 174 [34] Albert Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn, Liberty Classics 1915) [35] BBC [36] BBC

Pollution Essay: Immediate Action Must be Taken on Global Warming :: Climate Change, Argumentative Essay

Global Warming is an important ecological issue, but is usually overlooked for more pressing short term problems. With so little attention provided to global warming, our situation can only get worse. Problem's already happening include the greenhouse gas effect, though it occurs naturally and the earth would be much colder (around 30C cooler). But to much of these gases and we will change the climate to much, to an extent that we may not be able to fix. On top of the warming due to greenhouse gases, there are also holes in our O-Zone layer, which blocks out over 90% of the UV rays, and also the weakening of our atmosphere. What is global warming? Usually when people think of Global warming, it's the normal Ice Caps melting and warm winters, which is partly true. Global Warming is the accelerated rate in the increase of temperature. But they are ignorant to the fact that Global warming can and will cause so much more damage to us soon in the future, along with these effects we will also face Food Shortages from the extreme weathers, heating that can actually damage you, and water contamination. The increase in temperature is caused by greenhouse gases, such as methane from livestock and Carbon Dioxide, from cars and industrial process's. Greenhouse gases are chemicals that are found in the atmosphere, and can occur either naturally or due to human activities such as the overuse of fossil fuels, industry, and agricultural processes caused by human, natural, and other gas emissions. Because of their make up, they allow energy from the sun to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere, slowly warming our planet due to energy not being able to leave. Contrary to belief, global warming is NOT caused by â€Å"pollution†, but simply from process's that release Carbon Dioxide, like burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. If we do not slow down our use of fossil fuels (Or totally stop the use), and stop destroying the forests, the world could become hotter than it has been in the past million years. Average global temperatures have risen 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. If carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to go into the atmosphere, global temperatures could rise five to 10 degrees by the middle of the next century.

Shylock in William Shakespeares The Merchant of Venice :: Merchant of Venice Essays

Shylock in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice Shylock is a Jew in the play "The merchant of Venice". He has a daughter called Jessica and he is in many ways a victim of anti-Semitism. Shakespeare brings across Shylock as a Jew using many different devices. For example he uses anti-Semitism to show that Shylock is meant to be portrayed as an isolated character. Anti-Semitism was based on religious grounds back then, they held the belief that Jews murdered Christ and were therefore in the league of the devil, this is why the Christians in the play and the directors of the play are vengeful towards Shylock. I believe that Shakespeare deliberately isolates Shylock, which then makes the play more effective, because putting all Christians in the play wouldn't give the play such a strong plot, as it has now. There would be no verbally abusive things said to both the Christians and the Jew and no remarks or stage directions used to show Shylock as the outsider, because the Christians would have treated him like one of their own! From the occurrences at that time, there were no rumours going around about the Jews which were mostly all made up, but it then gave Shakespeare an incentive, which resulted in portraying Shylock as the villain. Firstly, what is definitely noticeable is that Shylock is presented as an outsider. A way that this is proven is when you look at the directors, entrance notes an exit notes, they stand out considerably because Shakespeare writes Shylock "The Jew" this immediately denotes a difference within the play. Another way that Shakespeare is making the audience consider the fact Shylock's an outsider, is his use of language. It's very repetitive and it's conspicuous he's an outsider, he ends his sentences wit "well" every time. The sort of treatment that Shylock obtains from the other characters is that of a more aggressive and rude nature, but Shylock returns their vicious comments by a play on words and his hate for Christians,

Han China vs. Gupta India Essay

The Chinese Han Empire, which date from 206 BC to 220 AD, and the Indian Gupta Empire, which date from 375 AD to 550 AD, were elaborate kingdoms that thrived during their time. Although Han China and Gupta India were politically stable, Han China’s developing bureaucracy was centralized, while Gupta India was much more regionalized. Han China and Gupta India both featured extensive internal trade; however Gupta India was more involved with trade. Both empires had many intellectual achievements but Han China had much more innovative achievements, as in improving things, while Gupta India was much more dynamic, meaning the Indians worked on theories and then proved them. Something the Gupta Empire and the Han Empire had in common was that the emperors of these empires both believed they were chosen from the gods to rule. Han China had a very centralized bureaucracy which meant the emperor ruled over China, and this helped the rulers rule over a vast amount of land. The bureaucracy was capable of carrying out the duties of a complex state. In Gupta India, however, their government was regionalized meaning there were many local rulers ruling over certain regions. There was not much emphasis on politics in Gupta India so they did not develop solid political institution, like Han China did. There were very few formal political values or institutions besides regionalism so the political culture was not as involved or intricate. Despite the fact that both Han China and Gupta India had a deal of internal and external trade, the Gupta Empire was much more involved in trading overall. In Han China, much of the trade focused on luxury items for the upper class, such as silk, jewelry, leather goods and furniture. They also traded food and copper coins once they began to circulate. The Gupta Empire traded things such as cotton, silk, dyes, drugs, gold, ivory and more, getting in return pottery, wine, metals, slaves and gold. The merchants in the Han Empire were not as respected as they were in the Gupta Empire because of the Confucian emphasis on learning and politics, not on money-making. In the Gupta Empire, merchants were of relatively high class according to the caste system. Even though the Gupta and the Han both were involved in trade, both were largely agricultural societies so they depended greatly on the peasant class. The two empires, Han and Gupta, both had many intellectual achievements, although it could be argued that the Indians had much more of a variety. The Gupta Empire was more dynamic than the Han, meaning it was open and branched out much more. During the time of the Gupta Empire, they developed pieces of literature and Indian drama flourished. Their most notable intellectual achievements were the Indian numbering system, the concept of zero, and the decimal system. In the Han Empire, people were encouraged to not stray away from practicality. Chinese scientists were always improving their machinery and they invented a seismograph. The Han focused more on how things worked, which is why Chinese scholars would study the mathematics in music. One may assume that Han China and Gupta India were only different but that is not the case. As well as their many differences, such as a bureaucracy in China and a regionalized government in India, both empires were politically stable with rulers that believed they were chosen by the gods to rule. Despite Gupta India having more emphasis on trading, both empires were agricultural societies which depended on the peasant class. The Gupta Empire and the Han Empire both had an abundance of intellectual achievements although the Gupta Empire was much more dynamic while the Han Empire was restraint. Both empires blossomed in their time because of the many characteristics that make an empire great such as their economy, their intellectual achievements and their political institutions.