How would leaving the EU affect sovereignty?

The European Union began due to an agreement for peace in a war ton and divided continent. Furthermore, 5 years after World War 2 ended, France and Germany decided to ensure that the two countries would never go to ar against eachother again and this was aagree by a deal signed by 6 nations to pool their coal and steel resources in 1950. In addition, 7 years later, the European Economic Community treaty was signed in Rome and is the foundations of todays European Union. Also, the EU now has 28 member states including the UK.

Moreover, leaving the EU would have a great affect on where sovereignty lies in the UK. This is because of the way new laws could easily be passed without them being repealed by the European Union. An example of this is when the fishing law was removed by the EU which allowed countries to fish in native waters.

Furthermore, if the UK left the EU, parliament would gain more power, due to it holding the most power within the UK. This could be a negative to leaving the EU because if parliament is sovereign, then there will be no higher body of power meaning that parliament could do what they want. This could effectively lead to a dictatorship organisation due to there being no boundaries or higher body to control certain actions.

In conclusion, the EU has a lot of power over the UK and certain decisions which can be made. Therefore, if the decision was to leave, then this could come with great consequences to the UK due to Parliament having overall sovereignty and therefore being able to do whatever they want.

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK?

Sovereignty is the legitimate and exclusive right to exercise power within a given area. This therefore means that sovereignty is supreme power. Furthermore, there are three types of sovereignty: legal sovereignty, political sovereignty and pooled sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is where the supreme power lies based on the meaning of law. Political sovereignty is where the supreme power lies based on reality and pooled sovereignty is where all members of the institution are represented but none of them have an overall say. An example of pooled sovereignty is the European Union.

Within the UK, our sovereignty is based within parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty is seen as the main principle of the British Constitution and is regarded as holding the supreme authority within the UK. This is shown by Parliament approving most key decisions that are made (however the Prime Minister has an overall say on some issues involving military and foreign decisions). 

Also, Parliament has the power to grant and remove powers given to ministers, devolved governments, local governments and other public bodies. However, parliament cannot override the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, all new primary legislation must be passed by Parliament and secondary legislation made by ministers can be overruled by Parliament. This therefore shows how Parliament is sovereign in the UK because it has the power to give and take back the powers which certain bodies obtain.

In addition, Parliament is not bound by previous Parliament actions. Therefore, the current Parliament cannot pass laws which cannot be repealed or changed by future Parliaments.

In conclusion, these arguments show how sovereignty in the UK lies within Parliament due to the way it has an overriding power on laws which can be passed within the UK and due to the approval needed by Parliament on almost all of the key decisions which are made.

What are the core principles of the UK constitution?

A constitution is a set o rules and regulations which control what the government are allowed to do. Almost all other countries have a codified constitution, which means that it is written in a single written document, but the UK has an uncodified constitution. This therefore means that the constitution is not set out in one written document.

The UK’s constitution is made up of various written documents such as: statute law, court judgements, and European legislation. Also other documents have developed from: case law, common law, historical documents and custom. This therefore explains why the UK constitution has been more accurately described as ‘partly written and wholly uncodified’. Furthermore, unwritten conventions from understandings and customs are considered to be binding, despite not being enshrined within statute or supported by law.

One feature of the UK constitution is a historical aspect called the royal prerogative. This gives the monarch power to: declare war, make treaties, deploy armed forces, appoint and dismiss ministers and dissolve parliament. However, these powers are formally given by the monarch but are actually exercised by the government ministers.

In addition, the most important principles of the UK constitution are parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. This means that parliament can make or unmake any laws without being bound by the previous government. Parliamentary sovereignty therefore means that parliament is the supreme law making body. However, this is now disputed by the UK’s European Union membership, which enables European law to have superiority over any conflicting domestic laws. Also, the application of parliamentary sovereignty has been reduced by the passing of certain laws by parliament, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998.

Finally, the rule of law includes fundamental principles to which the government and the law have to abide by. This includes the principles that ‘no person is punishable in body or goods without a breac of the law’, this means that individuals cannot be punished unless they have committed a clear breach of the law.

Should the UK introduce a codified constitution?

There are many reasons as to why the UK should and should not introduce a codified constitution. A codified constitution is written in a formal document which defines the constitutional settlement and includes the rules that govern the political system and the individual rights of the citizens and the government.

One reason as to why the UK should adopt a written constitution is because at present, many of the basic rules about our government do not exist in any legal form at all. This therefore means that they do not necessarily have to abide by this set of rules due to it not being illegal if they don’t. Furthermore, only politically educated people understand these set of rules and only the politically elite have access to them.  This therefore means that the people who care meant to have created the rules cannot see if the government are following them.

However, one reason why the UK should not adopt a written constitution is due to the current constitution working well in its current form and people have the opinions that ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’. Also, it is impossible to codify the current constitution without changing the original version and this would create great confusion.

Another reason why the UK should have a written constitution is because constitutional history is no longer taught in any depth in schools at this present time as a compulsory subject. This is unlike the pre-1945 era when it formed an essential part of civic and history classes at school. Furthermore, the population now is generally less aware and educated on the unwritten conventions of the political system. This is therefore a major reason as to why the UK should codify the constitution.

On the other hand, the reason written constitutions all around the world have been created is due to the result of a revolution, domestic catastrophe, and cessation or grant independence from a colonial power or larger political union. In addition, none of these circumstances have in the UK of today and therefore there is no need for a codified constitution.

In conclusion, I believe that the UK should codify the constitution because this will enable the public to have a wider understanding of what rules the government should be abiding by. Therefore, this will create more order in the UK.

What is a constitution and why is it important?

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. An example is the constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English-language translation, while the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, containing seven articles and 27 amendments, and a total of 4,400 words.

There are many reasons why a constitution is important. Firstly, the people have the right to choose their own form of government. Furthermore, there are many different types of government in the world and therefore different countries need different forms of government to suit their particular circumstances and traditions. This means that the people of a country should choose the style that they think right for their country and rulers have no right to impose a form of government different from the one that the people chose.

Also, the people have the right to put enduring limits on their government. Once the people have chosen their form of government, then the rulers may not thereafter change it. By choosing the form of government, the people have the right to limit the government officials, who may not depart from the rules laid down by the people. The people typically put several kinds of limits on officials. Firstly, they divide power among different parts of the government. Secondly, they sometimes divide powers between the central government and more local governments such as provinces. Thirdly, they require that the government respect the people’s individual rights. Finally, they require that the government shall be accountable to the people through regular and free elections.

In addition, once the people have chosen a form of government and limits on the government, they have the right to entrench those rules in a constitution. The people create and limit the government; the government is like the servant or the child of the people. In the constitution, the people give instructions to their servant, the government. A constitution must therefore be as clear and specific as possible, or else the instructions will be vague. For that reason, the constitution is typically a written document.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

There are many reasons for why some pressure groups are more successful than others. One of them is due to their relationship with the government.  Some insider pressure groups are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers and are therefore able to influence legislation.  For example, Trade Unions and the British Medical Association may be asked to share their expertise and policy details.  These groups may be more successful than outside groups , who will find it hard to influence government legislation.  These may be groups who wish to work with the government such as Greenpeace or because of their violent methods that cannot be associated with the government, for example Anti Animal Testing Groups.  Therefore, these groups may be less successful in directly influencing the government.

Furthermore, a reason why some pressure groups are more successful is because of there financial situation and organisation.  Pressure groups can receive money from membership fees and donations for instance.  Evidently, this results in pressure groups having a higher success rate as they can spend more money on advertising and employing professional lobbyists, scientists etc. Ultimately, this can influence public opinion and the government, making the pressure group more successful, for example Live 8.  In addition the success of a pressure group is also based on there organisation, more publicity campaigns can keep the cause going and gain support from the public eye.  In recent events, Ash was successful promoting the dangers of smoking which resulted in the ban in public areas.  Therefore, this shows that wealthy and organised pressure groups may be more successful in influencing the government.

Moreover, a third reason why some pressure groups are more successful than others is due to the media.  Media coverage plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public, the media will portray a pressure group as important or not important therefore influencing public opinion.  For instance, Live 8 used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa, without media attention the pressure group would have been unsuccessful.  This shows that the media helps to improve public image, however it is apparent that a well known charismatic leader can influence the success of a pressure group.  For example, Bob Geldof and Bono helped to promote problems in Africa.  This maintains that the media can determine the success of a pressure group.

In conclusion, the decision on methods used can affect the success of  pressure group.  For instance, Amnesty International refuse to use militant methods to promote there cause.  On the other hand, extreme methods used by pressure groups can lead to the alienation of public support.  For instance, the direct action used by Father 4 Justice and Anti Animal Testing groups can often be of a violent nature.  Therefore, this implies that the methods of practice used can effect the success of a pressure group. 

RSPCA pressure group

A pressure group can be described as an organised group that does not put up candidates for election, but seeks to influence government policy or legislation. They can also be described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby groups’ or ‘protest groups’. Some people avoid using the term ‘pressure group’ as it can inadvertently be interpreted as meaning the groups use actual pressure to achieve their aims, which does not necessarily happen. In Britain, the number of political parties is very small, whereas the number of pressure groups runs into thousands; as the membership of political parties has fallen, that of pressure groups has increased.

One example of a pressure group is the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The RSPCA were the first pressure group to introduce a law to protect animals and they work hard to ensure that all animals can live a life free from pain and suffering. Furthermore, through campaigning they raise standards of care and awareness of issues for the animals who have no voice. With the support of the public, they push for laws to be changed, the improvement of the welfare of animals on farms, in research labs, in the wild, in paddocks and in people’s homes.

The RSPCA use investigations and prosecutions to stand up to people who deliberately harm animals to send out a clear message that animal abuse will not be tolerated. In addition, highly trained officers tackle neglect and cruelty at every level and work hard to stamp out large-scale serious, organised and commercial animal cruelty.

This pressure group is an animal welfare charity and they rely on the continuing support of animal lovers to help them so they can continue to be there for animals. The RSPCA accepts donations from the public and people can get involved by campaigning, volunteering or fundraising to help the charity.

Moreover, the RSPCA is an insider pressure group. This means that the government will ask high place people with them for advice and it will be listened to more than an outsider pressure group. However, they are a charity and receive no government funding; they only rely on people to support this work through donations.