Parliamentary sovereignty (also called the sovereignty of parliament, parliamentary

supremacy, or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some

parliamentary democracies. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute
sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any
executive or judicial bodies as they may exist). Furthermore, it implies that the legislative
body may change or repeal any prior legislative acts. Parliamentary sovereignty contrasts with
notions of judicial review, where a court may overturn legislation deemed unconstitutional.
Specific instances of parliamentary sovereignty exist in the United Kingdom[1] and New
Zealand.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Finland
 2 New Zealand
 3 United Kingdom
o 3.1 History
o 3.2 Scotland
o 3.3 England and UK generally
o 3.4 Recent developments
 3.4.1 United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill
 4 See also
 5 References
 6 External links

[edit] Finland

According to the constitution of Finland sovereign power lies with the people, represented by
the parliament[2]. As the highest organ of government the parliament holds supreme legislative
power and can override a presidential veto and alter the constitution. There is no
constitutional court and the supreme court does not have an explicit right to declare a law
unconstitutional.

By principle, the constitutionality of laws in Finland is verified by a simple vote in the

parliament. However, the Constitutional Law Committee of the parliament reviews any
doubtful bills and recommends changes, if needed. In practice, the Constitutional Law
Committee fulfils the duties of a constitutional court. In addition to preview by the
Constitutional Law Committee, all Finnish courts of law have the obligation to give
precedence to the constitution when there is an obvious conflict between the Constitution and
a regular law.

The power to alter and amend the constitution is vested with the parliament, requiring
approval either by a five sixths majority, or by a simple majority in two consecutive
parliaments. A Finnish peculiarity is that the parliament can make exceptions to the
constitution in ordinary laws that are enacted in the same procedure as constitutional
amendments. An example of such a law is the State of Preparedness Act which gives the
Council of State certain exceptional powers in cases of national emergency. As these powers,
which correspond to U.S. executive orders, affect constitutional basic rights, the law was
enacted in the same manner as a constitutional amendment. However, it can be repealed in the
same manner as an ordinary law.

Executive power is shared by the President of the Republic and the cabinet, of which the latter
must rely on the confidence of the parliament. From the independence of Finland in 1917 up
to the constitutional reform of 1999, the president held considerable executive powers, and in
particular was able to call a re-election of the parliament at will. In order to strengthen the role
of the parliament as the highest organ of government, the constitutional reform constrained
most of the presidential powers to be exercised only on the advice of the cabinet.[3].

[edit] New Zealand

The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in New Zealand is derived from that in the United
Kingdom but differs in that New Zealand has no devolved institutions and supra-national
obligations. New Zealand's unitary and insular status avoids any comparable limitations on
legislative power:

The constitutional position in New Zealand... is clear and unambiguous. Parliament is

supreme and the function of the courts is to interpret the law as laid down by Parliament.
The courts do not have a power to consider the validity of properly enacted laws. [4]

[edit] United Kingdom

[edit] History

Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense
“ in conversation) the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three
bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute
Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than
this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to
make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by
the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. ”
A.V. Dicey Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)

During the 17th century the idea grew in England that parliament (House of Lords and House
of Commons) shared in the sovereignty, based on an entirely erroneous notion of the history
of parliament[5]. It was not until the changing of the Coronation Oath in the Coronation Oath
Act 1688 as part of the Glorious Revolution that Parliament was recognised as part of the
constitutional structure, with laws being considered to emanate from parliament and not just
the King[6]. It is arguable whether the concept of parliamentary supremacy arose from the Acts
of Union 1707 or was a doctrine that evolved thereafter[7]. After 1689 English parliamentary
supremacy began to be seen in the relation of the English parliament to those of Scotland and
Ireland. The Act of Settlement 1701 made a presumption upon Scotland: the Scots retaliated
with the Act of Security 1704, which was countered by the Alien Act 1705: the issue was
settled by the Union of English and Scottish parliaments in 1707 which created a new British
parliament, though "in essence it was just an extension of the English parliament"[8]. The
autonomy of the Irish parliament also came under attack and the Declaratory Act 1720 made
the Irish parliament a dependency. The so-called Constitution of 1782 removed British
parliamentary supremacy for a short period but then the Irish parliament was merged with
Britain's in the Acts of Union 1801.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

 Parliament can make laws concerning anything.

 No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be
changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
 A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme
lawmaker.

This is in contrast with the de facto right an English jury has had since at least the trial of
William Penn in 1670 to judge the law according to its conscience and if necessary return a
verdict contrary to the law prescribed by parliament in what is known as a perverse verdict
(see jury nullification). A similar right was established in Scots law after the trial of Carnegie
of Finhaven in 1728 where the jury brought in a Not guilty verdict instead of finding the
accused Proven or Not proven according to the law.

The notion of parliamentary sovereignty began to be challenged with the Parliament Act 1911
which changed the nature of what was meant by parliament, as Dicey regretfully noted in the
Introduction to the 8th edition of his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
(1915) , but that while the reality was now Cabinet and political party were supreme (pp lxxii-
lxxiv), in law parliament was still sovereign albeit that "the share of sovereignty" of the
Commons had increased (p xlii).

Parliamentary sovereignty was further undermined by the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act
1922, which effectively recognised the concept of consent rather than the law as the source of
legitimacy, and the United Nations Act 1946 which bound the UK to an external organisation
and restricted parliament's absolute sovereignty. In theory Parliament could repeal the Act and
withdraw from the United Nations.

Parliament also renounced its sovereignty over the legislatures of former dominions and
colonies in the British Empire. Following the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster
1931 established a status of legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of the
British Empire and the United Kingdom, and provided that Acts passed by the UK Parliament
would not apply in the dominions without a dominion's express consent. It is difficult to see
how the UK could later resile from that position. By way of further example, the UK
Parliament passed the Canada Act 1982 which stated that the UK Parliament would no longer
be able to amend the Canadian constitution. If the UK parliament were to repeal or amend the
Canada Act 1982, it would be unenforceable as Canada is no longer subject to UK
sovereignty."[9] However, such renunciatons do not affect the concept of parliamentary
sovereignty.

European law does not recognise the British concept of parliamentary supremacy[10]. The UK
courts currently recognize the supremacy of EU law on those subjects where the EU can
legislate.[11][12] However, this supremacy conceptually derives from the European
Communities Act 1972 and its successors, which could in theory be repealed by a future
parliament. No sovereign state has ever left the EU, but since the passage of the Treaty of
Lisbon in 2009 there is now a defined process for doing so.
[edit] Scotland

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please
do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2010)

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk
page. (October 2010)

After the Act of Union 1707 there remains ambiguity about whether the principle applies in
Scotland. Although no Scottish court has yet openly questioned the validity of an Act of
Parliament, certain judges have raised the possibility. Thus, in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate,
the Lord President (Lord Cooper) stated that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of
Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish
Constitutional Law", and that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily
be regarded as constitutionally valid. Also, in Gibson v Lord Advocate, Lord Keith was
circumspect about how Scottish courts would deal with an Act which would substantially alter
or negate the essential provisions of the 1707 Act, such as the abolition of the Court of
Session or the Church of Scotland or the substitution of English law for Scots law.

The Establishment of the Scottish Parliament has meant that area of parliamentary supremacy
is redefined.[citation needed][original research?] For example, nuclear power is not within its competence,
but the Scottish government successfully blocked the wishes of the UK government to
establish new nuclear power stations in Scotland using control over planning applications
which is devolved.[13] While it remains theoretically possible to dissolve the Scottish
Parliament or legislate without its consent in relation to Scotland, in practice such a move
would be politically difficult.

[edit] England and UK generally

Parliamentary supremacy is blamed by contemporary legal historians for the failure of

English law to develop due process in the American sense (that is, a mechanism for protecting
the human rights of individuals from being arbitrarily infringed by the government).[14]

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, in English Law, was upheld by Lord Reid in
Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645:

It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do
certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so
strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things.
But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If
Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid.

Such a theory might not, however, work in practice. In 2004, the Government sought to pass
the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which contained a
comprehensive "ouster clause", which would have excluded judicial review of decisions on
applications for asylum. There was uproar among judges and lawyers, and the Lord Chief
Justice, Lord Woolf, went so far as to suggest that if the clause were to become law, the courts
would simply refuse to apply it.[15] With a constitutional crisis looming, the government
backed down, and the clause became law in a much-diluted form. It should be noted that
following the case of Factortame, which involved an ouster clause in the Merchant Shipping
Act 1985, the court can obfuscate such ouster clauses by basing decisions on the "will of
Parliament".

[edit] Recent developments

Parliamentary sovereignty currently prevents judicial review of primary legislation passed by

Parliament. However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the notion of parliamentary
supremacy was modified under the influence of four principal sources:

1. The devolution of power to regional assemblies in Scotland (Scottish Parliament), Wales

(Welsh Assembly) and Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland Assembly). All three assemblies
can pass primary legislation within the areas that have been devolved to them, but their
powers nevertheless all stem from the UK Parliament and can be withdrawn unilaterally. The
Northern Ireland Assembly, in particular, has been suspended multiple times due to political
deadlocks.
2. The UK's membership of the European Economic Community, later the European Union,
from 1973. The EU represents, as the European Court of Justice ruled in 1963 in the case Van
Gend en Loos, a "new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the [Member]
States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields". The UK became part of
that legal order, though as UK membership of the EU has been brought about through Acts
of Parliament – principally the European Communities Act 1972 – there is in principle the
possibility that Parliament could, as a matter of UK law, pass further legislation unilaterally
withdrawing the UK from the Union, or selectively barring the application of European law
within the UK. In practice, any Act purporting to withdraw from the European Union would
have to be passed in parallel with the withdrawal procedure laid down in Article 50 of the
Lisbon Treaty, whereby a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to
secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union
and the State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the
agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification.
3. Following the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council certain statutes are perceived to be
protected as Constitutional Statutes. The case involved amendments to the Weights and
Measures Act 1985 by the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment)
Order 1994 pursuant to Directive 80/181/EEC. This stated that Imperial measurements could
be displayed so long as the metric measurements were displayed in larger type beside them.
Thoburn was convicted for only displaying Imperial measurements. In his defence he argued
that allowing even limited use of Imperial measurements was inconsistent with the European
directive and therefore in contravention of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act
1972, and that the relevant section of the 1972 Act had therefore been implicitly repealed.
However, the judgement by Lord Justice Laws held that certain statutes of constitutional
importance, including Magna Carta and the European Communities Act 1972, could not be
repealed by implied repeal. The case also introduces the concept of a 'hierarchy of acts',
which is used in other European countries [16], to English constitutional law.
4. The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates part of the European
Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. The Act gives UK courts the power to issue a
declaration of incompatibility where they believe that the terms of an Act of Parliament are
in contravention of the rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act. The effect of the
declaration is not to annul the contravening Act but to send a signal to Parliament which may
then choose to amend the offending provision. As with the UK's membership of the
European Union, the principle of parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament can at any
 time vote to repeal the Human Rights Act, and indeed the UK's ratification of the Convention
itself.

However, Parliament may theoretically withdraw from commitments it has made or repeal
any of the constraints it has imposed on its ability to legislate.

It can be argued that legal sovereignty has been lost as EU law is now supreme in the UK[17],
but Parliament still retains a degree of political sovereignty in that it represents the electorate;
however "absolute parliamentary sovereignty no longer exists in Britain"[18].

[edit] United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

In January 2010 Bill Cash MP introduced a bill into parliament called the United Kingdom
Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill [19]. The bill would seek to make a requirement for referendum
before any further powers were given to the EU.

[edit] See also

 Parliament of the United Kingdom

 Factortame case
 List of democracy and elections-related topics
 Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union
 Congress of People's Deputies of the Russia

[edit] References

1. ^ UK principle: no Parliament is bound by the acts of its predecessors

2. ^ http://web.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/parliament/relatedinformation/constitution.htx
Constitution of Finland. Retrieved on 2009-01-27.
3. ^ Parliamentarism-thisisFINLAND, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
4. ^ Rothmans of Pall Mall (NZ) Ltd v A-G [1991] 2 NZLR 323 at 330 (HC).
5. ^ Pocock, J.G.A The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge University Press
(1987) pp234-235
6. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685-1720 Allen Lane
(2006) p349
7. ^ Alder, John Constitutional and Administrative Law 7th edition Palgrave Macmillan (2009)
p167
8. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685-1720 Allen Lane
(2006) p498
9. ^ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. Scarborough, Ontario:
Thomson Canada Limited, 2003.
10. ^ Alder, John Constitutional and Administrative Law 7th edition Palgrave Macmillan (2009)
p173
11. ^ Berry,Elspeth and Hargreaves, Sylvia European Union law Oxford University Press 2nd
edition (2007) p39 "The national courts are therefore obliged to give effect to those Treaty
obligations, even if this means disapplying national law."
12. ^ Turpin, Colin & Tomkins, Adam British government and the constitution: text and materials
Cambridge University Press (2007) p 335
13. ^ "Cross-border row rages over SNP blocking new nuclear power stations". The Daily
Telegraph. 16 April 2009.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/5163756/Cross-border-row-rages-
over-SNP-blocking-new-nuclear-power-stations.html. Retrieved 8 September 2010.
14. ^ John V. Orth, Due Process of Law: A Brief History (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas,
2003), 28-31.
15. ^ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1162591,00.html
16. ^ European Commission website
17. ^ Berry,Elspeth and Hargreaves, Sylvia European Union law Oxford University Press 2nd
edition (2007) p41 "In terms of legal sovereignty, not only has the UK parliament lost its
exclusive right to legislate, but Community law will prevail over national laws."
18. ^ Budge,Ian , McKay,David , Newton, Ken & Bartle, John The new British politics Longman 4th
edition (2007) p177
19. ^ UK Parliament website

Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally,
the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future
Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK
constitution.

Parliamentary sovereignty and the UK constitution

People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It
may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written
down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law.

Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'.
(Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)

A core principle of the United Kingdom’s uncodified constitution is the principle of

parliamentary sovereignty.  The authority on this principle is the law professor A.V. Dicey,
author of the most influential treatise on British constitutional law of the last century, An
Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, where he writes that the UK
parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or
body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the
legislation of Parliament.”[1]. Thus, parliamentary sovereignty means that the courts of the
UK have no power to overturn legislation, which means that the parliamentary sovereignty
was “ the dominant characteristic of our political institutions”, which is in stark contrast to
the United States’ principle of judicial review.

This principle of parliamentary sovereignty is now at odds with the UK’s current role as a
member state in the European Union (EU), subject to the supremacy of European law.  Unlike
the United States constitution, which contains a supremacy clause, the EU’s constitutional
treaties contain no supremacy clause, either in their original form as the 1957 Treaty of Rome,
or in their current form as the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  Much like the United States Supreme Court’s
decision to create the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) took it upon itself to declare EU law supreme.  In the 1964 case, Costa v.
ENEL, the ECJ declared that EU treaties, legislation, and caselaw are the supreme law of the
land, and that the national courts of member states are bound to misapply laws of the member
states that are in conflict with Union law.[2] This principle of EU supremacy is in direct
contradiction with parliamentary sovereignty, which expressly prohibits UK courts from
disapplying acts of parliament.

The Factortame cases are a series of litigation in the 1990s over the compatibility of the UK’s
Merchant Shipping Act of 1988 and EU law.  In Factortame, the ECJ held that the UK courts
must set aside the Merchant Shipping Act because it was in conflict with EU law.[3] After
this decision, the UK courts had the choice to adhere to parliamentary sovereignty and uphold
the Shipping Act, or adhere to EU supremacy and set aside the act.  With parliamentary
sovereignty and EU supremacy at odds, the UK courts needed to reconcile this paradoxical
situation.

When Factortame returned to the House of Lords, the court issued an injunction to suspend
the Merchant Shipping Act of 1988.  It explained that by setting aside the law, the court was
in fact enforcing the will of parliament, not usurping parliamentary sovereignty. [4]

The UK had entered the EU in 1973 when it passed the European Communities Act of 1972. 
In this act, parliament declared that the UK courts must interpret English law in accordance
with EU law; effectively limiting parliament’s sovereignty.  If the 1988 Shipping Act was
incompatible with EU law, it would also be in conflict with the European Communities Act of
1972.  Although the last in time principle generally applies when two statutes of parliament
are in conflict, the House of Lords explained that the 1972 act was a special constitutional
statute which could not be overturned by subsequent legislation, such as the Merchant
Shipping Act, without an express statement by parliament that it was overturning the previous
constitutional statute.  In this way, by invalidating the Merchant Shipping Act of 1988, the
House of Lords was enforcing the will of the 1972 parliament to voluntarily limit its
sovereignty, thus upholding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and adhering to the
principle of EU supremacy.[5]

Although the Factortame cases legally preserve UK parliamentary sovereignty by holding

that parliament can expressly repeal the European Communities Act and withdraw from the
EU, it is politically and practically unlikely.  For the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom
will remain a member state of a federal system, thus provoking debate over whether its
parliament is truly still sovereign.

United Kingdom: Parliamentary

Sovereignty under Pressure; Elliott, Mark
A significant political development in the last two decades has been the increasing presence of
extra-parliamentary pressure in the form of powerful pressure groups, which has forced parliament
to revise or repeal laws it has made. For example, trade unions forced the amendment of the
Industrial Relations Act and the extra-parliamentary action forced the government to replace the poll
tax with the council tax in the 1980's. These examples suggest that in practice, the principle of
parliamentary sovereignty is limited.

Additionally, the UK has agreed, at various times, to many international agreements and treaties
which place upon parliament certain obligations. For example, the UK joined NATO in 1949 and as a
result, it let go of some control over defence and foreign policy. Theoretically, commitments like this
do not infringe parliamentary sovereignty since parliament could decide to amend or ignore certain
terms at any time, although this is not likely.

Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary
sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:

 The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
 The Human Rights Act 1998.
 The UK's entry to the European Union in 1972.
 The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of
Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary

sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing
these changes.

How is the parliamentary sovereignty LIMITED????

2. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been modified as a result of the several political
developments which have taken place in the 19th and 20th centuries. Almost all adults over the age
of 18 have the right to vote. This means that the House of Commons is now elected by popular vote.
There seems to be a difference between political sovereignty, residing with the electorate, and legal
sovereignty, resting with parliament.

Referendums have also affected parliamentary sovereignty because they remove decision-making, or
the confirmation of decision making, from Parliament. In recent years, the development of the party
system has occurred which has altered the balance of Power between parliaments and the
executive. Since the government is generally formed from the largest existing party in the House of
Commons, it can usually rely on its majority to secure approval for its proposals.

It could be argued, therefore, that laws are initiated not by parliament, but by government. The
principle of parliamentary sovereignty implies no theory about the location of political power. The
sovereignty of parliament has always been limited by the need to take account of political realities

3. The issues surrounding sovereignty in the UK system are affected by Britain's membership of the
European Union (EU). The laws of the EU are binding on all member states, and therefore, take
precedence over British domestic law. Apart from a few exceptions, EU legislation automatically
becomes law within the UK, irrespective of the opinion of the British Parliament. Although this is the
case, parliament could agree to repeal previous legislation, withdraw from the EU to demonstrate
that parliamentary sovereignty still exists. However, this is unlikely unless one of the mainstream
political parties were to adopt a strong anti-EU policy.

The 1986 Single European Act and the Maastrict Treaty can be seen as reducing Britain's

sovereignty since they have extended the range of policy areas on which the EU can legislate. This
has caused many British Conservative members of the European Parliament to continually vote
against many proposals, not because they necessarily disagree with them, but that they think they
should be dealt with at a national level. Sovereignty and the EU
No word in the debate about Europe causes more confusion than the word sovereignty. This paper seeks to
clarify the subject.
National sovereignty, sometimes used to mean national independence, has to be viewed against the background
of the interdependence of modern states. When the concept of the modern nation state emerged about 400 years
ago, the Sovereign, Emperor or King, was relatively free of constraints on his freedom of action. But even then
trade and alliances made this freedom relative. The history of the 20th century is one of growing interdependence.
In the 21st century even the only superpower, the USA, finds itself with limits on its freedom of action.
The role of Parliament is an issue. The advocates of an absolute definition of parliamentary sovereignty argue
that the acid test is whether Parliament remains free to change or reverse decisions that the UK Government has
approved in the EU Council or even Treaties that Parliament has itself ratified. Many treaties contain an
abrogation clause, with a period of notice. In such cases there is no problem. In the case of the EU, where the
treaties are intended to be permanent, the situation is less simple. The UK Parliament could certainly legislate to
overthrow an EU measure, but the European Court would rule this action illegal. If the Government of the day,
supported by Parliament, refused to comply, there would be a major crisis and, failing a compromise, Britain
would find itself on a path which would lead to withdrawal. No one could prevent the UK Parliament from deciding
to leave the EU, despite its ratification of the Treaty of Accession and the 1975 referendum (though there would
be significant costs).
There are other uses of the word sovereignty. Nation states are said to give up part of their sovereignty, for
example by signing a Treaty or by agreeing to an EU Directive which removes the right of decision from the
national government or parliament in a particular field. Or they are said to share or pool sovereignty by agreeing
to common action though EU institutions, thus participating in decisions taken by the EU in accordance with its
procedures, and no longer retaining the right to act unilaterally. In this use of sovereignty it virtually means the
same as freedom to decide unilaterally.
All countries, both inside and outside the EU, have given up or pooled some sovereignty. Mrs Thatcher was right
when she said, at the time of the 1975 Referendum on Europe:
“Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of
sovereignty so as to create more effective political units.”
Examples are NATO, the UN or the WTO. Nations come together to protect the environment, resist threats to
international peace and security, promote free trade and investment and defend human rights, to name but a few.
Each time a country joins an international organisation or signs a Treaty, it restricts its freedom of action and thus
gives up a part of its sovereignty or independence, even if only a small part. Countries are prepared to pool
sovereignty in particular areas because they recognise the practical benefits of doing so. Approaching common
problems by participating in collective decision making with appropriate partners in reality gives countries more
effective control over global events and problems than they could possibly hope to wield were they to continue to
act alone.
It is often forgotten how much sovereignty/independence Britain has shared outside the EU. In each case, we
have done so to secure benefits for the people of this country. NATO of course is the prime example since the
ability to defend itself is central to the concept of the nation state and its sovereignty. Britain is committed to
intervene in the common defence if another member is attacked, and the degree of cooperation is such that we
have disposed of our forces in such a way that it would now be extremely difficult for most member states to take
military action alone in all but the most limited of scenarios. The Council of Europe agrees conventions, of which
that on Human Rights (with its Court to adjudicate) is of huge importance. That on Torture allows inspections of
prisons without warning. The Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe imposes monitoring forces and limits their
number, location and activities. In the economic field the IMF can impose conditions if a country gets into financial
trouble (the UK has not been immune!). The WTO has strict policies – and much more besides. The idea that we
would have unfettered sovereignty outside the EU is not correct.
There are those who argue that globalisation, multinational corporations and organisations, the internet, the
speed of modern transport and communications etc mean that the concept of the sovereign state does not have a
future. But the abolition of the nation state does not figure on any serious agenda. Ask any European politician
whether his or her country is a sovereign nation state and you will receive an emphatic ‘yes’ for an answer, even if
further probing would reveal consciousness of the limitations on its freedom of action. The ability to decide
nationally on a whole range of matters, such as taxation, social security, health and education, are still important
to most people.
Nevertheless in several countries, including the US and the UK, the idea of rolling back the frontiers of
international co-operation has gained some ground. Isolationists speak as though sovereignty was not only
absolute, but an absolute good. They ignore the fact that in the modern world it has become necessary to give up
some freedom of action to achieve common ends. If there were no international rules about hunting whales, there
would be no whales! In the particular case of the EU, the Single European Act of 1985, negotiated by Margaret
Thatcher, with its huge increase in the fields covered by majority voting and the nearly 300 Directives required to
complete the Single Market which followed, was a major sharing of sovereignty. This was required if the non-tariff
barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people were to come down. That the Single Market
is a good thing is not in dispute and sharing of sovereignty was indispensable to achieve it.
The reality is that both in the EU and elsewhere, pooling of sovereignty to achieve shared objectives will certainly
need to continue. Drugs, international crime, money laundering, trade, the environment and action against
terrorism are only some of the things that require common action. The judgement as to whether to act in common
or not in each case will continue to be made on the basis of practical arguments about efficacy. It is the role of the
Heads of Government to ensure that the democratically elected representatives of the member states remain the
driving force behind EU action. But many things do not require any pooling of sovereignty. Indeed there is a
growing consensus in the EU that some things are better dealt with nationally. Delors himself, the arch-demon of
anti-European ideology, has said to the French Senate: “areas like education, health, employment, and social
security, in short everything which creates social cohesion, must remain national competencies”.
The key question is whether an important share in EU decisions in fields which require joint action makes it
worthwhile to continue the argument on the inside rather than alienating our European partners and having a
limited freedom of action outside. This is where we can plainly see the strength of the argument that it is important
to gain and retain influence.
To conclude, sovereignty is a dynamic concept. It is in practice relative, not absolute. Much sovereignty has been
shared already, but nothing essential to the well-being and sense of identity of the people of the member states
has been lost. The sovereign nation state will be with us for the foreseeable future, even if its influence over some
areas of policy will be much less than in the past. Meanwhile countries will best protect and further their interests
by not hesitating to exercise some of their sovereignty collectively to achieve their aims.

European Union raises fundamental

questions relating to the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty
The Constitution of the United Kingdom is creaking.  Based on unwritten
conventions and an ineffectual separation of powers the government fails to
be truly accountable.  The House of Lords remains an anachronism and our
membership of the European Union raises fundamental questions relating
to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty

The issues surrounding sovereignty in the

UK system are affected by Britain's
membership of the European Union (EU).
The laws of the EU are binding on all
member states, and therefore, take
precedence over British domestic law. Apart
from a few exceptions, EU legislation
automatically becomes law within the UK,
irrespective of the opinion of the British
Parliament. Although this is the case,
parliament could agree to repeal previous
legislation, withdraw from the EU to
demonstrate that parliamentary sovereignty
still exists. However, this is unlikely unless
one of the mainstream political parties were
to adopt a strong anti-EU policy.

The 1986 Single European Act and the

Maastrict Treaty can be seen as reducing
Britain's sovereignty since they have
extended the range of policy areas on which
the EU can legislate. This has caused many
British Conservative members of the
European Parliament to continually vote
against many proposals, not because they
necessarily disagree with them, but that
they think they should be dealt with at a
national level.