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

In the UK, Parliament can be said to have given up some of its sovereignty when it passed the European Communities Act 1972, which enabled the UK to join what was then the European Economic Community, at the beginning of 1973 and required courts in the UK to apply EU law.


As a result, a great deal of legislative power has moved to the EU, meaning that European law is superior to British law. Therefore if there is any conflict between EU law and UK law, EU law must prevail and Parliament do not have the power to pass any law that conflict with EU law. In this sense Parliament has lost some of its legal sovereignty to the EU. However, if the UK was to leave the EU, Parliament would get full legal sovereignty back, meaning that British law would no longer be inferior to the EU and Parliament would be able to pass any law, even if it conflicts with EU law. So British law would be more flexible and easier to pass and prevail.


Since joining the EU, there has been significant shifts of legislative authority over trade, the environment, employment rights and consumer protection. This means that Parliament has lost its sovereignty over these areas of policy to the EU, so Parliament do not have as much sovereignty over them, than they do over criminal law, social security, health and education (which have not been passed to Brussels). Therefore, if the UK was to leave the EU, Parliament would have legal sovereignty over trade, the environment, employment rights and consumer protection, and would not have to consult or abide by EU law over these areas of policy. However, this may be a disadvantage because EU laws provide for refunds or other remedies for consumers, and some jobs linked to trade with the EU could be lost. There would also be less agriculture trade between the UK and the EU, and the UK would have to replace the trade deals which the EU already has with some non-EU countries, such as Korea.


There is controversy over the status of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is not legally binding on Parliament, therefore Parliament retains its sovereignty over this. Despite this, Parliament treats the European Convention on Human Rights largely as if it were supreme. Therefore sovereignty over this would not change, however the UK would no longer have to treat the European Convention on Human Rights as superior and would be able to do what it like with it.

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK

There are three types of sovereignty that lies in the UK which are exercised by different political bodies: legal, popular and political sovereignty.

Legal sovereignty lies with Parliament which means that no other body has the power to make laws or to overrule laws made by Parliament. Statutory powers can be granted to a subsidiary body or to a minister only by Parliament. Elected MPs in the House of Commons alongside the House of Lords makes the law in Parliament which is legally sovereign as it is not bound by laws, made by previous Parliaments. The laws made by the government cannot be entrenched by each Parliament and future Parliaments cannot be prevented from repealing or amending them, by each current Parliament. 

Recently Parliament has delegated its legal sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament which has primary legislative power under the Scotland Act 1998; however this could be repealed which shows that UK Parliament still has the ultimate sovereignty. 

It can be argued that the central government is legally sovereign between elections because it has been granted through the people's mandate. However it has no ultimate power because it can be overruled by Parliament. Therefore legal sovereignty lies in the UK Parliament except where it has conceded some powers to the EU. This is known as pooled sovereignty where ultimate power is exercised by the members states collectively.

Popular sovereignty lies in the power to the people which is exercised in three senses. Firstly, popular sovereignty is exercised through General Elections where British citizens elect a Parliameny and a government. The people have power in this sense as their verdict cannot be challenged. Secondly, popular sovereignty is exercised through parties' mandates to carry out the policies in its election manifesto. This way people have granted authority to the government to have power. Lastly, referendums are now held more frequently, where its results are not binding on Parliament. Therefore it is argued that they are not sovereign. However it is inconceivable that a government or Parliament would refuse to accept the verdict of a referendum as it gives power to the people (popular sovereignty).

Political sovereignty is exercised through the UK government and the prime minister because these political bodies hold most power in reality. Therefore, political sovereignty can be seen in the following circumstances. The UK government is politically sovereign because it has a mandate from the people, where most of its proposals are almost certain to be accepted through Parliament. The prime minister in the UK, has prerogative powers which are exercised on behalf of the monarch. This cannot be overruled by Parliament without passing a special Act of Parliament. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments and assemblies have political sovereignty over certain areas of policy  making, because the devolution laws have granted them wide powers. Popular sovereignty exercised by the people can also be political sovereignty as it increases political participation. 

What are the core principles of the UK constitution?

The UK constitution has many core principles that have been established through time.

Firstly, the UK constitution is uncodified which means that, instead of being written in a single document (codified), it is written in a variety of sources. These include conventions, statutes, historical principles and authoritative works, commom law, tradition and its relationship with the EU. Therefore it is not entrenched and is flexible, compared to a codified constitution, such as the US, which is rigid and entrenched.

An entrenched consitution is one that is specially safeguarded against changes, so it has more complex arrangements for amendment than the normal legislative process. However, the UK constitution is not entrenched because it is flexible, therefore it can be amended easily and quickly by Parliament. This is because there are no restrictions on how Parliament can amend the constitution, which comes to an advantage in times of emergency as it doesn't take a long time to change the constitution.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy, which means that many actions are taken in the name of the monarch, but the Queen does not actually make any decisions; she just signs the Royal Assent when a Bill is passed. Before 1688, the monarchy enjoyed the royal prerogative where they had all power over Britain. However, after the 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688, the Crown's prerogative powers have been gradually eroded: passing all law making power to Parliament and then to the head of government (the Prime Minister). Therefore the monarchy now play a largely ceremonial role which is limited by the firm constitutional rules.

Another principle of the UK constitution, is the system of Parliamentary Government where parliamentary accountability is combined with executive power. As a result, Parliament grants authority to government ministers to dominate it and rule the country, and they must be accountable to do so.

Parliamentary sovereignty is another principle of the UK constitution, in which Parliament is the ultimate source of all authority, all law and power within the political system. Therefore there is no higher legal authority than Parliament, meaning that the UK has a one tier legal system; unlike the US where they have a two tier legal system because their constitution is codified and federal.

Party government is a principle of the British constitution where the constitutional system can only operate in the context of party control. In particular, the arrangement concerning the operation of both the cabinet and the House of Commons, depends on the fact that a single political party is in control of the executive branch, and is usually able to control its majority in the Commons. This is completed by that political party winning a majority of seats in the General Election which supports the collective responsibility, mandate and manifesto, government and opposition, and patronage of the government.

Britain is a unitary political system which means that legal sovereignty lies in one place: Parliament. This contributes to the single tier legal system as Parliament has the final say in all political and constitutional matters, even though a great deal of power has been decentralised through devolution.

In your opinion should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why?

The UK's constitution is currently uncodified which means it is written in different sources and is easily amended because it is not entrenched. The constitution is also unitary as it lies in one place which is why Britain has a single tier legal system with no form of higher laws; just Parliamentary sovereignty. The constitution is not judicial meaning that no political bodies can declare whether certain actions are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Whereas codified constitutions', such as the US constitution, features are opposite to the UK's constitution: they are written in one single document, so they can be entrenched, and they are usually federal constitutions which allows the state to have a two tier legal system: constitutional laws (being the highest laws) and then common laws. Uncodified constitutions are also judicial which means that all political bodies are subject to the authority of the courts and supreme courts.

Changing the UK's constitution from uncodified to codified would create stronger safeguards needed for individual and minority rights. Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights, but they can be overridden by Parliament as they have the right to do whatever it wants. The Liberals argue that the executive power of the government is excessive in the UK because it threatens individual rights, minorities and influence of public opinion; having a codified constitution would enable Parliament to control the government on behalf of the people. It would also increase public awareness and support as British citizens don't fully understand the concept of a constitution, so changing it would allow citizens to understand our relationship with the EU and would make the UK a modern democracy.

Although I agree with these advantages of codified constitution, I believe that the UK's constitution should remain uncodified, however, because it can be easily adapted to the changing world without confusion, in a short amount of time. This can be done by Parliament simply passing a new Act, or developing new unwritten conventions. For example, this comes to an advantage in times of emergency, such as the 9/11 terrorist attack, when Britain had to pass a wide range of anti-terrorist measures. If Britain's constitution was codified and entrenched, it would have been extremely difficult and long to pass these measures. Although uncodified constitutions allow the government to be more powerful, which can be a disadvantage to the people, but it makes sure that the government are not prevented from acting against the constitution. In addition, the UK's uncodified constitution has served Britain well for centuries because there have been no violent revolutions or major political unrest, therefore there is no need to change it. Adopting a codified constitution would involve the supreme court and would become judicial. This means that unelected judges would interpret, re-interpret and resolve political issues of the constitution, so they would not be accountable; such decisions should be resolved by an elected Parliament, which would improve the UK's democracy.

What is a constitution and why is it important?

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the country: citizens and the government. It determines how political power should be distributed within the states. For example, federal settlements divides the power between central governments and regional institutions, such as America, and unitary States have power in one place, such as the United Kingdom. They also determine the balance of power between government and parliament, president and prime minister, or between the chambers in the bicameral system: the two Houses of Parliament. 

Constitutions establish the political processes that make the system work and establishes the relationship between political institutions. They also have to be amended as changes occur through time. Therefore it is essential that a constitution contains the rules for its own constitution to be able to amend it. For example, the UK is unusual in regards to amendment, because its constitution changes in two ways: through parliamentary statute and through the evolution of unwritten rules, called conventions. Ireland and France are also different because they use referendums to approve change. 

They also give rights to citizens (civil liberties) against the state, such as in the form of a Bill of Rights, which is a statement that prevents a government from 'stamping on citizens', or by establishing rules in regards to nationality. This is important because it protects the people from the government and prevents dictatorship. 

Constitutions are the most important things in politics as without them, the government could do what it wanted, such as oppressing minorities and violating people's freedom. Citizens cannot trust the government and anyone who has power, because having too much power could lead to corruption.  Having a constitution not only prevents dictatorship, it limits the power of the government, which means that the government are also being controlled. However, in Britain there are no limits placed on Parliament, as it is sovereign. Therefore it has the legal right to do what it likes, whereas the U.S. constitution sets the rules that the government needs to abide by. 

Codification is the process of setting out a constitution in an organised way, which is in a single document. Codified constitutions are constitutions that are organised or written in a single document which is the only source of constitutional rules. Whereas an uncodified constitution has several different sources and has no single document. 

An example of a codified constitution is the US constitution, set up in September 1787, under the Independent 13 former British colonies. This constitution establishes America's national government and fundamental laws, and guarantees certain rights for its citizens. Another example of a codified constitution is the constitution of Norway which was established in 1814, when they were free from Danish rule. The French constitution is another codified constitution which was established in 1958, which happened after a coup d'état, when the new president named Charles de Gualle took over. The most recent codified constitution is of Iraq, established in 2005 following the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. 

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Insider groups, such as the Howard League Penal Reform, are less democratic than outsider groups because they concentrate solely on becoming closer with the government and do not have to campaign publicly. This is less democratic as they are not taking direct action to include the people, and could become 'Prisoner groups' where they would have to change or go by the government's rule; this prevents memberships of the pressure groups campaigning for their cause. As a result, these types of pressure groups would be pleasing the government instead, and wouldn't have a huge amount of media coverage because the government may not want the public to know that they are close to that pressure group.

Insider groups are more of a form of representative democracy (which is said to be less democratic), so these groups represent a group of people and their views, but many only campaign for them through their relationship with the government; the people that are part of that pressure group may not be able to campaign themselves. However this is isn't the case for all insider groups as members of the NUT a have striked protested in regards to their wages, working conditions, hours etc.

Why are some Pressure Groups more successful than others?

Firstly, some pressure groups (PGs) are more successful than others because of their relationship with the government. Insider groups, especially, are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers, who are able to influence legislation. For example trade unions work closely with the Labour Party to support the working class and their jobs.

Outsider groups are less successful than insider groups, because these groups are completely independent from the government and they usually wish to cause disruption or inconvenience, such as striking and protesting, to have influence on the government.

Outsider groups are usually unsuccessful because of the violent methods they use, which cannot be associated with the government, so they have to rely on public support to try and gain legislation, for what they are campaigning for. For example, Anti Animal Testimg groups have indirectly influenced the government by harassing and intimidating staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridge, to get their message across.

Another reason, on why some PGs are more successful than others, is because of their financial situation. PGs that recieve money from membership fees and donations, usually have a higher success rate because they can afford to advertise and employ professional lobbyists and scientists etc. More publicity for their campaigns, keeps the cause going and raises the attentions of the public. For example the pressure group called ASH, was successful at promoting the dangers of smoking, with lots of publicity and advertising, which resulted in the ban of smoking in public areas.

Some PGs are more successful than others, because of media coverage as it plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public; portraying them as important or not important. Media is a wide source to advice people, as it is covered on the TV, the Internet and the radio etc. So almost everyone in the country will have seen, or heard something about a pressure group and how they are campaigning, by the media. An example includes the pressure group Live 8, which used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa; without this, they would've been unsuccessful. A well known charismatic leader also contributes to influencing the success of a pressure group because people seem to listen more to famous figures; Bob Geldof and Bono also helped to promote problems in Africa.