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 This is because of the way new laws could easily be passed without them being repealed by the European Union.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.