During the $2040$ s$,$ global wars create enormous problems with the supply chains for certain core food ingredients. As a result, the price of preparing certain recipes becomes very expensive. For

example, the cost of the ingredients necessary for preparing a proper shepherd's pie has risen to $60.$ Unsurprisingly, most households have stopped cooking shepherd's pies. A great fear has

arisen that the unique knowledge of making this signature UK dish would be lost forever.

To prevent the disappearance of the art of making a proper shepherd's pie, Prime Minister Mr$.$ Cornish Wellington introduced the "Saving our National Dish Bill $2050,"$ which states:

$"1.$ Grocery stores are required to prepare kits containing all the necessary ingredients for preparing a shepherd's pie as stipulated in Table $1$ of this Act.

The selling price for each kit shall not exceed $20.$

At the end of each month, grocery stores are required to report on the number of kits sold to the Treasury.

The Treasury will pay grocery stores a $60$ subsidy for each kit sold.

This Act can only be changed by an explicit repeal."

With tears in his eyes and a plate of a shepherd's pie in his hand, Mr$.$ Wellington tells Parliament: $"$We will never abandon our pie!". The Bill is passed by Parliament with a unanimous vote and

receives Royal Assent as the "Saving our National Dish Act $2050."$

By $2054,$ peace has spread around the globe and food prices have dropped. As a result, Parliament legislates the "Food Supply Act $2054"$ which states:

"All subsidies for food ingredients paid by treasury are hereby revoked." Answer BOTH $($a$)$ and $($b$).$

$($a$)$ In $2055,$ the owner of the chain store Marx and Freud argues that the Treasury must continue paying the $60$ subsidy for the ingredients required to prepare a shepherd's pie. The case

reaches the Supreme Court.

Following the oral hearing, the President of the Court asks you, a judicial assistant, to write a memo discussing whether the Treasury must continue to pay the $60$ subsidy. The President tells

you to assume that the Human

Rights Act is irrelevant as another assistant is working on that issue. The president adds that your memo need not take the form of a judicial opinion.

$($b$)$ Ten years have passed, and you are now a professor in public law at the University of Ploughman. At the end of the semester, you receive an email from one of your students that reads:

"Dear Professor,

I really enjoyed your classes this semester!!! But I have one question that keeps me awake at night. You told us that the Supreme Court has noted that parliamentary sovereignty has been

eroded, and it is not in its pure Diceygn version anymore. I wondered about how to overcome the scenario in which Parliament enacts a statute cancelling elections. Surely, it would be more

constitutionally sound if the King refused to give this statute Royal Assent rather than the Supreme Court striking down this legislation. After all, the monarch has a well$-$established authority to

give Royal Assent, and judges do not have any authority to strike down laws enacted by Parliament."

Critically evaluate the student's argument.