Someone seems to have fired all the lawyers from the coalition government when I wasn't looking

So our Benevolent Dictator has long promised a Sovereignty Bill - check out http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6902986.ece, for example. The full draft text has been published at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/048/10048.i-i.html, and makes for some interesting reading.

If I'm understanding it correctly, it states that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign, excepting the European Union stuff and a few other bits and bobs. There are a few problems with this idea. Firstly, to state that the United Kingdom Parliament is independent and can do anything (except the things it can't do) simply makes no sense. A body is either all-powerful or it isn't; it can't be "all-powerful, except for blotto".

The alternative, of course, is even worse. If the Act states that Parliament is all-powerful and independent including the EU stuff, our lives get a lot more difficult. This is what will happen; some little bastard will bring a case on the application of a directive or regulation that conflicts with UK law - a directive that hasn't been implemented would be the best option. That little bastard could well be me, given that if this passes my dissertation is rather fucked in the jacksie. The Supreme Court (because it WILL go there) will be asked to decide whether the directive/regulation or Act of Parliament takes precedent.

If the directive/regulation does, the court has to throw out an Act of Parliament (again), thus torpedoing the idea of Parliamentary Supremacy and causing a bit of a pickle. If the Act wins, the EU gets really, really pissy, and we get landed with a fuck-off big fine. So either way the Act is read, we're fucked.

My second objection is a purely academic one - a body cannot define itself. It is an accepted principle that Parliament could not define itself or it's Acts as supreme; Salmond writes that "No statute can confer [the power to declare force of law] upon parliament, for this would be to assume and act on the very power that is to be conferred", while Wade argues that "no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey Acts of Parliament". The ultimate law maker cannot confer upon itself the ultimate legal power. This Act breaks with centuries of law and could throw this country into chaos if challenged.

Plus it will rather fuck with my dissertation. I'm working hard to prove that Parliament isn't supreme and sovereign. Cameron, stop being a party pooper.