Summer of frenzy...

Brexit has turned British politics upside down, a mad frenzy has been cast upon British politicians, causing absolute havoc in the houses.  Firstly,  Cameron’s somewhat expected resignation, head of the remain campaign Cameron swiftly decided to resign as PM stating that he can no longer take the country in the direction it is heading due to his political beliefs.

The brexit campaign was more a tit for tat campaign with politicians constantly trying to out do one another with supposed certified facts of the state of Britain after exiting or after remaining. After the Brexit campaign winning, the whole country had a watchful eye on the direction of the country, social media were all commenting how the British currency was dropping and rocketing very frequently. The pound plunged dramatically on 24 June, the day after the referendum. Since then it has remained at significantly lower levels because of uncertainty about the economic outlook and the UK's relationship with the EU. Against the dollar, the pound is now worth about $1.33. A year ago it was worth $1.57 - a fall of 15%. Against the euro, it is now worth about €1.19. A year ago it was worth €1.35 - a fall of 12%.

Theresa May now comes along fighting off other contenders: Johnson, Gove and Leadson, promising to take Britain in the right direction with a trade agreement with New Zealand. May's new cabinet also includes a Secretary of State for Brexit, David Davis, and an International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox. Mr Davis, Mr Fox and Mr Johnson all campaigned for Brexit and have roles focusing on it, but are reported to have clashed over the extent of their new responsibilities. However she has stated that she has no intrust currently to take article 50 into the commons for a vote, which is extremely controversial baring in mind the people have voted for us to leave the EU. The EU understandably are not best pleased with this decision with their desire for a swift departure.

As political thinkers had expected of course the leave campaign haven’t got what was promised! Nhs receiving extra funding? The suggestion of a point based system compatible to Australia’s? Another prime example of British politics failing to follow through on its empty promises.

 Many economists prior to the referendum had been predicting an immediate and significant impact on the UK economy and consumer confidence should the country vote to leave the EU. But this has not been shown by the figures so far.

Hate crime since the referendum statistics:

·      There's clear evidence of a spike in hate crime since the 23 June ballot. Reported hate crime rose by 57% in the four days after the referendum, police say.- BBC

·       Some 3,219 hate crimes and incidents alleged to have taken place between 16-30 –BBC

·       The next reporting period, from 1-14, July, saw 3,235 reports of hate crimes and incidents. This was up only 0.5% on the previous fortnight but it was still a 29% increase on the same period in 2015.-BBC

This rise in hate crime is clearly within correlation to the outcome of the EU referendum. The clear rise within the statistics are shocking due to the common knowledge of most hate crimes not being reported.

Moreover Corbyns political position has wavered over the summer somewhat dramatically with the total number of MPs to be reduced from 650 to 600 under government plans the labour party is expecting a harsh blow from these plans. Moreover Corbyn struggled to reach the ballot, and now has been entagled with a scandal with Richard Branson, owner of Virgin. Corbyn aimed to create a provoking image of the busy trains in London when Branson hit him back hard with the reality of empty seats within cctv footage. Corbyn has been made to look completely ridiculous.

Politics once again forever changing and somewhat surprising. 

What are the current Governments key areas of constitutional reform

The current conservative government are not as keen as a third party would be for constitutional reform, because constitutional reform limits the powers of government. As the conservative government are a leading party, and have been in power, coalition or by themselves since 2010, they understand that constitutional reform would limit their power massively. The House of Lords Reform Act 1999 limited the conservative government because the majority of hereditary peers were conservatives. 


In the current manifesto as it lies does not have many constitutional reforms, a Conservative win takes large-scale House of Lords reform off the political agenda. The party’s manifesto explicitly stated that ‘this is not a priority in the next Parliament’ (page 49). This reinforces how the current government are reluctant to introducing constitutional reform that they are aware will limit themselves further in the future.

However in the conservative manifesto, similar to those of the other UK wide parties committed to implementing recommendations to devolve further powers to Scotland. Although this would reduce the governments powers over Scotland, they would still have some and it would be less pressure on Parliament if powers were further devolved. However these proposals were strongly criticised by two parliamentary committees – in both Commons and Lords. The SNP will press for more, in pursuit of full fiscal autonomy; while devo-sceptic Conservative backbenchers may argue for less. The sensible thing may be to introduce proposals via a draft bill, to see whether middle ground can be found.

Furthermore a massive constitutional change that would increase the powers of government is the EU referendum, although Cameron may not be so keen, his narrow majority means that his Eurosceptic backbenchers are in a strong position to hold him to his promise. Therefore leading to a EU ‘in or out’ referendum to take place later this year.

In conclusion, the current Governments key area of constitutional reform is very little to previous years, in 1997 under Labour and in 2010 under the Coalition government, however constitutional reforms are still a feature of their manifesto. 

How would leaving the EU affect sovereignty, and therefore the UK's constitution?

The term sovereignty can be defined in three ways- legally, popularly and politically. Legal sovereignty is the power to make and unmake binding laws, to grant ultimate powers to individuals or other bodies and to determine the nature of the constitution. Currently there is an ongoing debate as to whether the UK should leave or maintain our position in the EU. The current conservative government have proposed a referendum set on the date the 23rd of June 2016, the prime minister has expressed his preference of a 'no' vote. 


Our sovereignty would certainly increase when it comes to political sovereignty, power would be firmly placed within the hands of government and this could be taken either as a positive or a negative, it may lead to a elected dictatorship which could then infringe on peoples rights due to the Human Rights Act no longer being in place. However the government of the day have argued that they will put in place the British Bill of Rights to ensure the people are protected. This could effect our constitution because there is an argument that it would be better to have our rights tailored to our country, however some rights included in the European Convention of Human Rights may be abolished and our rights and liberties will no longer be the same.


Moreover leaving the EU will affect legal sovereignty, some legal sovereignty will be regained. Due to the UK being apart of the EU and some legal sovereignty has been transferred and is commonly known as pooled sovereignty. This would effect the constitution because the government has no higher form to answer to. With our current position in the EU, which at the moment is still as part of it, our constitution revolves arguably quite heavily around the EU and EU laws, which are superior to UK law and must be implemented by British courts. Parliament cannot pass any law that contradicts or conflicts with EU law, and where an interpretation of EU law is needed, it must be referred to the European Court of Justice, as established by Lord Bingham.

In conclusion leaving the EU will cause constitutional change and sovereignty in multiple ways, it is a controversial topic and the outcome will be extremely interesting. 

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK?

Sovereignty simply means complete and total power, within the UK it is questioned often where our soveregnity truly lies. The monarch for centuries has had complete power, but there were many reasons as to why power was delegated to parliament instead, such as government were there to rule and the monarch only to reign. 

So it could be argued that in todays current society parliament is sovereign (parliamentary sovereignty) which  is a form of legal sovereignty meaning Parliament has the ability to make, unmake and remove any laws it wishes. However in effect the monarch at any given time can withdraw power and take it back, although this is very unlikely to happen due to the complications in which it would provoke, and the undemocratic nature of this may cause revolutions and political upheavals. 

Moreover it could be argued that parliament in fact does not have complete and total power due to the restrictions the EU imposes, EU law takes precedence over UK law, for example if the UK were to introduce a new law which conflicted with EU law it would automatically be revoked. Therefore it could be argued that in fact EU has complete sovereignty over the UK.

However it could be argued that at any given time the UK has the right to withdraw from the EU, and is currently a topic undergoing discussion, as a referendum has just been put in place to determine the countries position, whether to remain apart of the EU or to withdraw. 

Sovereignty in the UK does not lie simply in the hands of one person or place, it is confusingly dispersed amongst collections of people that are not even based within the UK, which poses the question, where does sovereignty truly lie?

What are the core principles of the UK constitution?

The UK constitution has a set of core principles, one of them being parliamentary sovereignty. Sovereignty is a key concept in all constitutions, this is because is defines the location of supreme constitutional power. In the UK power is located in parliament, and it is a core principle of our controversial constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty is a form of legal sovereignty, it gives parliament the power to make or unmake or remove any law it wishes. It gives parliament total power and complete control. There are many doubts about the accuracy and continuing relevance of parliamentary sovereignty, because parliament is not and has never been politically sovereign, although they have the legal right to make or unmake or remove laws they do not always have the political ability to do so. For example parliament has the legal right to abolish elections however this would result in popular protest.

Another core principle of the UK constitution is the rule of law, this is the second key principle of the UK constitution, it has been seen as an alternative to a codified constitution showing that even in the absence of higher law, government is still subject to legal constraints and and checks. 

Moreover the UK's constitutional monarchy is another core principle. Although the monarchy lost complete control and sovereignty a long time ago, it still remains a constitutionally significant body in the UK. However according to Bagehot dignified institutions still played a vital role even if they did not exercise meaningful political power. The role of the monarchy is a symbol of political unity. 


Furthermore parliamentary government is another core principle of the UK's constitution. The UK's constitutional structure is based on a fusion of powers between the executive and Parliament. Government and parliament are therefore overlapping institutions. Government governs through parliament however particular controversy has arisen as a result of the close relationship between government and parliament. This can lead to a situation in which the executive can use the sovereign power of parliament to make its own decisions which presents the problem of an elected dictatorship.

Lastly another core principle of the UK constitution is Eu membership, the UK's membership to the EU questions whether parliament is actually sovereign anymore. There are three ways in which the EU infringes upon parliamentary sovereignty. Firstly, the fact that European law is higher that statue law, and it will take precedence over statue law. Moreover that some EU bodies have supranational powers such as the European commission. Therefore they can impose their will on member states regardless of the stance taken by national legislatures. Lastly the decline of the national veto, the national veto protected parliamentary sovereignty by allowing any member state to block EU measures that threatened vital national interests. 

Chloe Ives

Should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why, if not why?

A codified constitution is an authorative document and it constitutes higher law, and it binds all political institutions including those that make ordinary law, this therefore gives rise to a two tier legal system. A codified constitution also is entrenched, it is therefore difficult to amend and or abolish, which can present issues in emergency. Codified constitutions are judicable so all political bodies are subject to authority of the courts. Whereas a uncodified constitution is not authoritative and it only gives way to a single tier legal system with no form of higher law. It is also not entrenched this therefore is means parliament is sovereign. An uncodified constitution is also not judicable, judges do not have a  legal standard against which they can declare that the actions of other bodies are ‘constitutional’ or ‘unconstitutional’.

There are many argument as to why the UK should adopt a codified constitution, but also many reasons to why we should not. A major disadvantage therefore of the UK’s unwritten constitution is that in the

absence of any higher form of law it is virtually impossible to ensure that the

rights of minorities and individual citizens are protected against legislative

infringement by Parliament. This is also linked to the argument that we give way to elected dictatorship by not having a written constitution that can limit the powers of government. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ was created in 1976 by Lord Hailsham, a former conservative minister. He said that an elected dictatorship occurs under two factors: sovereign power is completely in the hands of parliament and the fact that parliament is routinely controlled and dominated by the current government. The issue of a elective dictatorship is that the concentration of power allows the government of the day to transmogrify the constitution in any way they wish.

However it can be argued that the flexibility of the UK constiutution is a clear strength, it is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend the US constitution for example. Flexibility therefore arises from the fact that the UK constitution is not entrenched, therefore the advantage being that the UK’s constitution stays up to date and relevant. This occurs because it can adapt and respond to changing political and social circumstances. For example in a state of emergency the government can easily find a solution to the problem because their powers aren’t limited due to a flexible uncodified constitution.

Personally, I believe that the UK should adopt a codified constitution in order to protect the rights and civil liberties of the people. I believe that the uncodified constitution we currently live under ignores minorities and contradicts minorities massively, and If a codified constitution was adopted equality would be restored and the morale of the country would be boosted massively also.

Chloe Ives