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