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

What is a constitution and why do we need it?

A constitution is a set of principles, which may be written or unwritten, that establishes the distribution of power within a  political system, relationships between political institutions, the limits of the government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. The constitution is one of the most important things in politics. The main reason for the constitution is that we cannot trust the government or anyone that has power over us. Power corrupts the people, we need to be protected from those that have power, without a constitution the government could do whatever it wanted, they could violate freedoms, or be oppressing minorities.

In the UK we have a unwritten constitution also known as a uncodified constitution. Our constitution is non authorative, and provides us with a single tier legal system with no form of higher law, our system also is not entrenched, so parliament have sovereignty. The constitution within the UK is malleable to change and is known as unitary. Moreover it is not judiciable  judges do not have a legal standard against which they can debate that the actions of other bodies are 'constitutional' or 'unconstitutional'. It is also easy to amend in case of emergency.

However American have a codified constitution which is set out in one document and the document is authoritative, it constitutes higher law. It also binds all political institutions including those that make ordinary law, this therefore fives rise to a two tier legal system. Moreover their codified constitution is entrenched therefore making it difficult to amend in case of emergency and it is also difficult to abolish. However unlike the uncodified constitution we have here in the UK, the codified constitution is judiciable and all political bodies are subject to authority of the courts,

A constitution is important otherwise a dictatorship could occur.

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Pressure groups are a form of a pluralist democracy where a wide range of beliefs, ideologies and ideas is tolerated and allowed to flourish. It also implies a system where power is widely dispersed and not concentrated in a few hands. Pressure groups are mean to give minorities a say in a democratic nature, but there are a few pressure groups that suffer from a democratic deficit because of many reasons. Pressure groups are also a form of direct democracy, where the people take the power into their own hands, but what happens when pressure groups become very influential on policy making and over the government? Pressure groups do not have an electoral system, which is fine when they do not have masses of power, for example WWF have extreme amounts of power as an insider pressure group. However it could be questioned whether they are democratic any longer due to the lack of an electoral system for a powerful influential force. Moreover pressure groups cannot be held accountable when something may be their fault and is therefore undemocratic.

Moreover another example of a lack of democracy within pressure groups would be if they are supporting the minorities the majority is going to be unhappy, and democracy is all about looking after the interests of the majority. For example F4J is a sectional pressure group and therefore only fighting for one section of society, if everyone in the country was a part of a sectional or promotional pressure group then the country would be divided and fighting against each other for the ranking of importance with their issues. The government has a broad focus and looks at all types of issues occurring in society today and pressure groups place pressure on one feature only, therefore presenting a lack of democracy.

Why are some pressure groups more effective than others?

Pressure groups success rate can be dependant on numerous factors. Whether they are insider or outsider can be a huge factor on that impacts the pressure group. Insider pressure groups have special links to the government, and can sit regularly and discuss new legislation, old legislation and just general ideas with the specific minister. Insider groups are now a part of the decision making process. This can therefore be a clear reason as to why some pressure groups are more effective than others.

Additionally there are some pressure groups that were originally a insider pressure group, but move towards being an outsider pressure group. This is usually depending on the government in power, for example typically the Conservative government would not normally consult regularly with a pressure group like Liberty, the human rights pressure group whereas the Liberal Democrats would consider them as an insider pressure group. This could be a downfall for insider pressure group because of their wavering decisions, and this could therefore make outsider pressure groups more effective due to their sturdy position of staying as an outsider pressure group.

Moreover, outsider pressure groups have an advantage of not being held 'prisoner' to the government. This term is usually associated with insider pressure groups, when they are funded by the government and simply become controlled by the government. Outisder pressure groups may be more effective because they do not have to answer to the government and can delegate their money to what areas need it, they can be free and can embrace the whole point of a pressure group: influencing change.

Furthermore pressure groups effectiveness does not just depend on whether it is insider or outsider, effectiveness can be dependant on the action in which the pressure group takes in order to influence change. For example the pressure group fathers for justice, go to extreme levels and lengths in the hope of influencing change and perceptions by scaling buildings and holding extreme marches. Whereas some pressure groups take a more backseat approach and are therefore less effective due to the lack of 'pressure' they apply on the government.