Do excessive regulations sometimes have unintended consequences? What are some examples of the unintended consequences? Please use outside research to back up what you say.
t being so laid and approved.” It must be added that there is a slight check on this power. After 28 days, the instrument will cease to have effect unless it is approved by both houses . However, the impact an instrument can make in 28 days in the current political climate is considerable so the significance of this new power cannot be underestimated. The principle of supremacy of EU law has never sat comfortably with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. “Taking back control” was a fundamental concern during the referendum campaign but the act provides little alleviation from EU supremacy. The doctrine of supremacy of EU law will have no application to laws passed on, or after exit day, however the principal of the supremacy of EU law continues to apply in some cases when altering law passed before exit day. The Act is not clear as to which forms of retained EU law this will apply to, however it can be presumed that it should apply in corresponding with the forms of EU law, such as directly effective regulations, that themselves had supremacy. It could be said that overtime the importance of EU law supremacy will fade as it will be replaced with purely domestic law which the doctrine of supremacy does not apply to. However, when considering the sheer volume of retained EU law, it becomes clear that a significant component of domestic law will be made up of retained EU law for some time, thus bringing with it the supremacy of EU law. This will alter the constitutional standing of domestic law as it becomes susceptible to the supremacy of EU law, despite Britain’s exit from the European Union. When examining the constitutional implications for the courts, a big factor is that of case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Before leaving the EU, all courts were bound by CJEU case law and will continue to be bound by previous decisions while having “regard to anything done on or after exit day.”. However, the key constitutional change is that retained case law will no longer be binding on the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary. They will be able to depart from it by applying the same test as they would when departing form their own case law. This frees the courts of the constraints of EU case law and will result in decisions that are not influence by the CJEU – a clear constitutional change. In more general terms, the vagueness and ambiguities relating to retained EU law may prove challenging to the courts as they settle disputes that will no doubt arise around the meaning and impact of the new category of legislation. Moreover, the Withdrawal Act removes any action for state liability – the principle established in Francovich (Cases C-6 & 9-90) – meaning citizens will no longer have the ability to claim compensation as a result of UK failure to comply with EU law. This changes the constitution in a way that impacts mainly on ordinary citizens.There are some exceptions to this however. This does not apply to a situation where proceedings have begun before 29 March 2019 at 11pm or proceedings begin within the two year period beginning with exit day as long as it relates to something that took place before exit day. Arguably the most significant constitutional implication of the Withdrawal act, due to its possible long-term impact, is the impact on the UK’s territorial constitution. The Withdrawal Bill was su>GET ANSWER