How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the UKs' constitution?

How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the U Ks' constitution?

Since the 'rise (and fall) of UKIP', ( which is also the title of another banterous blog-post i did like ages ago) the issue of the EU has been tense. Following 2015, the torys included in their manifesto to hold a referendum on the issue, which was predicted for 2017.
However, its been confirmed to be held on June 23th this year. One of the main reasons to leave the EU is that Britain will become sovereign again or will it?
Sovereignty is said to lie in the EU, as it has ultimate power. Although a fair amount of power does lie in Parliament, which allows laws to be made, if laws passed via Parliament conflicted with the EU, it would override Parliament.
Therefore, in theory, if the UK left the EU full sovereignty would return to Parliament..right?
Michael Fallon, the Defense Secretary, stated that the idea that Britain can be fully sovereign and self governing outside the European Union is "an illusion".
He also states that “Of course there are those who would like Britain to have – not simply the illusion, but the fact – of being a self-governing nation again, where our parliament and courts are absolutely supreme again,”
'“But the difficulty is this – if we got back to the ‘golden age’ where our parliament is absolutely sovereign, you would still have the European Union next door, taking decisions that affect our trade and businesses and our way of life.”
(Quotes from here ) 

A principle of the Uks constitution is EU Membership - but obviously if the referendum is accepted, this would have to change. This states 3 things - 
1) European Law is higher than statute law. This was first established in the Factorame case in 1991, when the European Court of Justice suppressed certain parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 because they conflicted with the Treaty of Rome.If the UK left the EU, it would have no higher law to abide to, So, in theory, Parliament would have no restrictions, not even being binded by its successors. 

2) Some EU bodies, notably the European Commission, have supranational powers. 
This allows for EU bodies to impose their will on member states, being able to disregard their personal stance taken by national legislatures.
Again, if the UK left the EU, this wouldn't be able to happen. Pretty simple, really. 

3) The decline of the 'national veto'. The national veto has been seen to protect the presence of sovereignty in Parliament, by allowing any members to block European courts/ European Union measures that threatened the vital national interest, 
(Last time saying this i promise) So, if the UK left the EU, this national veto would not be necessary as EU measures would no longer apply to the UK.

In general, if the UK was to leave the EU, Sovereignty wouldn't really return to the UK and the principles of the constitution would have to be altered quite a bit. 

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK?

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK? 

Sovereignty is basically supreme power- in fancy terms, it means 'the legitimate and exclusive rights to exercise power in a given area.' 

The phrase 'Parliament is sovereign' if often use in politics and such - saying their Parliament has supreme power - a pretty simple concept to grasp. But again, this is politics, and nothing is ever that simple. 

There are different types of sovereignty in the UK too. Legal sovereignty is where supreme power lies according to the law, political sovereignty is where supreme power lies in reality, whilst pooled sovereignty is just in the EU. 

Back to Parliamentary Sovereignty though. Its pretty important as its seen as the main principle of the UK Constitution (remember that weird document that exists but isn't really there - kind of like my motivation as this point) - so again, Parliament holds supreme authority in the UK, which enables them to make laws and  argue and stuff. (That part is pretty important, so there is  a reason its repeated a lot- nothing to do with the fact that im trying to reach the minimum word count on this or whatever.) 

AV Dicey, said that '(Parliament)has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever, and further, that no person or body is regonised by the law of England of having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.' 

The sovereignty of Parliament can be observed in a number of ways. Government can gain that sovereignty through elections, as if they have the legitimacy of the people, they have the right to rule, and therefore the right to access this supreme power that lies in Parliament. (A pretty good job perk to be honest.)  However, there are a few rules that must be followed with this power. Although it looks like the PM can do as they please, when making important decisions, such as airstrikes on Syria,  they must gain the popular vote in the Commons. Bu if it comes down to something in their manifesto and they gain a strong majority in the Commons, the Lords cannot veto it, such as the EU Referendum to occur in June. 

A previously mentioned, the fact that Parliament can make and amend laws shows their sovereignty - this would be impossible unless it had access to the ultimate power that lies in Parliament. 

Parliament cannot bind, or be binded by its successors. However, the fact that the UK constitution is not entrenched kind of defies this point - for example, if the next Government come in with a strong majority, nothing is stopping them from abolishing the fixed Term Parliament Act passed in 2011. So, does this 'ultimate power' really have an extent..? (leaves on a cliffhanger as i don't want to go into this with too much detail because our next post might have to be on this topic.) 

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

I don't know how many times I've mentioned that the UK has a number of sources on here, but i know i have - a lot. Its a pretty important feature of the UK constitution though, so its good to get that point in your head. 

(I'm running off 2 hours sleep so this isn't as banters as usual im sorry) 

This basically means that the UK constitution is made up of bits and bobs from other important stuff - you can find bits of it  in statute law, common law, conventions and EU laws and treaties. 

Statute law is law made by Parliament, aka Acts of Parliament or primary legislation - when those people all shout out each other in the HOC. It outranks all  other sources of the  constitution; if a statute was to conflict with, a convention or common law for example, the statute will always prevail. Some acts that hare included in the constitution are the Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949, Scotland Act, 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011. 

Common law is based on tradition, custom and precedent- so whilst statute law is seen as being made by politicians, Common law is sometimes seen as 'judge-made law.' The Royal Prerogative and Traditional Rights and freedoms are included within common law.  

Conventions, therefore, are the key unwritten element within the constitution (aka which makes our constitutions so weird) These are mainly seen as a rule of a conduct or behavior, which everyone just kinda follows and accepts.The exercise of crown power, The appointment of the PM, consulting parliament before going to war, using referendums to approve major constitutional changes and collective ministerial responsibility are all examples of conventions. 

(This is the point where i realized we only needed to discuss the principles of the UK Constitution, not the sources, but i dont have the heart to delete all my work.)

Anyway, moving onto the only important part of this post- the principles!! 

The core principles of the UK constitution are the rule of law, Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliamentary Government, and a  constitutional monarchy.

Starting with the easiest one, the rule of law. This basically means that Government is subject to legal checks and constraints, so the Government is not 'above the law. (So even David Cameron could be arrested for bestiality) 

Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the absolute and unlimited legal authority of Parliament, as it can make, amend, or repeal any law it wishes- 'What Parliament doth, no power of earth can undo', as Blackstone said, the parliamentary authority. 

Parliamentary sovereignty is based om 4 conditions - the absence of a codified Constitution, the supremacy of statue law over other forms of law, the absence of rival legislatures and the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors. 

The UK is made up of a fusion of powers between the executive and Parliament, so Government and Parliament overlap, and our interlocking institutions - this is a parliamentary Government. They kind of come hand in hand, you can't get one without the other, peas in a pod. (almost like Doritos and the salsa dip.) Government, therefore, governs in and through Parliament. However, the closeness of these two institutions has caused tension, as it could easily lead to a situation where the executive could use the sovereign power of parliament for its own ends- the opportunity for an 'elective dictatorship' (Lord Hailsham, 1976) 

Lastly, the constitutional monarchy remains prominent in the UK constitution. 

Although during the 19th century, the majority of the monarchs remaining powers were transferred to the PM via prerogative powers, the monarch remains significant. It is argued that the role of the monarchy was to promote popular allegiance, to serve as a symbol of political unity above the general rough and tumble of politics. 

Bagehot states that the monarch as the right to be informed, be consulted, to warn and to encourage (I could do with an encouraging talk from the Queen to be honest.) 

Damn, thats inspirational Lizzie. 

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution?

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution? 

The UK currently has an uncodifed constitution, meaning that it has various sources, including statue law (law made by Parliament itself) common law (based on tradition, custom and precedent), conventions (a non-legal rule; a rule of conduct or behavior) and EU laws and treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009), whereas the US's codified constitution is enshrined in a single document - the differences between codified and uncodified constitutions are highlighted and explained on my previous post -  which is pretty amazing and well written if i do say so myself.

Adopting a codified constitution is a lot more than just stapling all those different pieces of paper together  and being all 'Woo! its codified now!' (well, you could do that. but good luck collecting all those documents) - but it has to be a lot more long and complex then that right? I mean, this is politics after all. 

One pretty big influencing factor is the flexibility of our uncodifed constitution: of course, as it sources from tradition and conventions, it evolves and shapes around our current society and norms - it goes without saying, but what was the tradition and norms in Victorian England are, and without going into too much detail, are a lot more unhygienic then they are today (thank god for the invention of sewers). 

The rigidness of the codified constitution is often argued that it is stuck in the past, as it has entrenched customs and traditions that may be considerably outdated today, and this is when the gun laws are often debated. Hundreds of years ago, 'the right to bear arms' continues and allows  US citizens to own a gun. Back then, his let farmers, for example, protect their land and livestock, when laws were weak. Nowadays though, do people really need guns? Due to its rigidness, their constitution cannot evolve and flourish with the people, and with Americans being extremely patriotic and proud of their constitution, it would be near impossible to change, or even amend; but this doesn't stop Obama from trying to currently make firearms safer. 

Although i just rugged that the codified constitution may be old and outdated, a some think that the uncodifed constitution itself is, well...old and outdated too. (Codified or not, some people just can't be pleased..) 

By a simple google search, its clear  most of the countries in the world have adopted a codified constitution- apart from a small few, including New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia ( #TeamUncodified 4 lyfe)  therefore, codified is more of the 'norm' in politics- but we shouldn't give into peer pressure! 

However, uncodified constitutions are a lot weaker, due to the fact that they are more difficult to entrench. This means the government of the day could easily abolish any law, (considering that they're legitimate), and this could give the executive too much power, as there is no control on governmental power under an uncodified constitution. For example, in the US, there are significant checks and balances on  the leaders power. 

Nonetheless, if the government of the day is legitimate and they have been democratically elected by the people, surely they should have the right to rule, and the power to do whatever they want.   

Overall, i  think the UK should keep our uncodified constitution. It allows our society to grow, its flexible so can be easily altered in times of crisis (eg. following 9/11) and the people are pretty happy with how it is now- and it makes out country just that little bit weirder (not that our politicians are weird enough).

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

The constitution has a pretty important role is governing and controlling the country. It may just be a super old and dreary document in some countries, or just a load of separate pieces of paper in others, but it contains vital laws for protecting our rights, and was the very beginning for our democracy. 

Constitutions are such an important part of a countries culture, that if a country is ever faced with an undemocratic, elitist or extremist leader, that they will first aim to destroy or completely modify the constitution, as they often retain leaders power.

The first constitution was created under King Johns leadership, as he started to raise the taxes to fund his (unsuccessful) wars in France. The Barons therefore created the Magna Carta in 1215, to ensure monarchs do not has an extremely excessive amount of power, and to be subject to law. For a few years it 'vanished', until Edward Cook MP, challenged Charles the First as his own powers grew. 

Oliver Cromwell (being the jolly soul he is) chose to ignore the Magna Carta, until  Thomas Jefferson incorporated its decrees in the American Constitution. 

Since then, the Magna Carta has been the base for all constitutions around the world, enshrining our democracy. 

Constitutions can come in different forms - codified and uncodified.

A codified Constitution means that the constitution exists in a single document, such as France, USA, China and Norway. When a constitution becomes codifed, it normally always takes place after an event which calls for a codified constitution. For example, the USA codified their constitution after the independence of British Colonies, and Norway after the counties freedom from Danish rule.

In a codified constitution,the document itself is authoritative, in the sense that it constitutes 'higher' law. The constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. This gives rise to a two-tier legal system, in which the constitution stands above statute law make by the legislature.     

Identification is another benefit of a codified constitution. The Americans worship their Constitution, and the country even sells pocket sized editions of the constitution,  and when becoming the President, they have to take a pledge to protect it. 

However, codified constitutions are extremely hard to alter - since the USA introduced theirs, its only been modified 28 times - but this is so dictators cannot easily amend it. 

The opposite of a codified constitution is an uncodified constitution, as seen in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This means that the constitution has many sources- in the UK, parts of the constitution can be found in statues, conventions, common law and traditions; because it has so many sources, the UK constitution can be easily amended, and with new laws being passed in the Commons and Lords very often, the UKs constitution can be changed every week. 

To summarize - King John was a bit of an idiot, but thanks to him we now have the super fancy 'magna carta', America loves their guns and the UK could be easily overthrown because of their uncodified constitution. Boom. 

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Pressure groups are usually seen in a way in which they strongly promote democracy and pluralism. This is because pressure groups easily allow more people to participate in democracy, offering more ways to participate and be educated on politics. The existence of pressure groups therefore supports free-flowing ideologies, and that power is then shared amongst the groups. For example, pressure groups have the power to rally people together, the power to influence legislation and to raise millions of pounds.


However, some groups can easily resist these qualities, and can then be seen as undemocratic. This can be mainly identified in sectional pressure groups, as they aim to represent a group of people, and sometimes the group can be wrongly represented by the group.


In promotional groups, this may be seen by the leader changing the groups aim without the full support of the group, or taking action in a way which no one else agreed on.


Insider groups could hold too much influence over Government Ministers, which can be detrimental to those who wish to reduce the role of the state, and outsider groups usually take direct action, which can be illegal and undemocratic - for example, in the USA, pro-life campaigners have been known to send letter bombs to abortion clinics, and in the UK the animal liberation front have been known to promote illegal actions, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities.

Lastly, the Animal Liberation Front can be seen as undemocratic, as they encourage illegal action.  hey have also been described as terrorists from critics.  This action can disrupt public services, just like the student protests did back in 2011. Therefore, strikes from trade unions can also be seen as undemocratic, as they can cause delays on public services, like the tube strikes and teacher strikes.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Why are some Pressure groups more successful than others?

The overall success of a pressure group is reliant on several factors such as finance, membership size, their status and impact. 

In general, a sectional pressure group would be considered successful if they were able to correctly represent their sector of society, such as being able to transfer the groups views and thoughts on policies when (and if) they are consulted by the Government. This especially applies to insider sectional groups, as they are consulted regularly, such as The Law Society, Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and The British Medical Association. 

These inside links with the Government can be displayed by a recent example concerning the BMA. The group planned to strike for 3 days in December of this year, but after negotiations with ACAS, the strike was postponed. 

For a promotional group to be successful means they were able to affect legislation to be in favor of their cause, for example the NSPCC having the power to ensure that laws ensuring children safety are protected, and introducing bills that would protect children even more. 

One factor that affects the success of pressure groups is finance. A group with supposedly more money would be more successful, as they can afford bigger campaigns to raise awareness. Some pressure groups do not accept financial support from the Government as they do not want to align themselves with a political party, so they operate through donations from the public. 

Secondly, a group with a large membership size are also likely to be more successful, as 

a large membership size means members can help more effectively with activities such as writing to the press, MPS and local councillors, and participating in demonstrations. The Government will therefore recognize the importance of large membership recognizing that such members are also voters who ultimately help to determine governments’ electoral fortunes while large membership and especially high membership density (the ratio of actual members to potential members) enhances pressure group representativeness and legitimacy and may help pressure groups to attain insider status. We should note also, however, that small local pressure groups concerned with small scale local issues such as hospital or school closures can be effective even with small membership and that the quality of membership may sometimes be as in important as the quantity. 

Insider pressure groups are generally more successful than outsider, as they have direct links to the Government and can easily influence the legislative process and can introduce bills easier (private member bills) through the support of MPs and Lords, 

However, some groups don't want to be identified as an insider group, and pride themselves on this fact. These are often groups that have extremist views or conduct illegal direct action, such as the Animal Liberation Front, whom publicly encourage illegal activity, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities; critics have gone so far to classify the group as terrorists. 

However, it should be noted that particular groups don't particularly need insider status to promote their cause, as some may want to simply promote an idea or facts, such as the vegan society. 

Nonetheless, despite a pressure group having a large membership size and a good source of fiance, they still may be unsuccessful.

For example, the success of Fathers 4 Justice has been argued. They are a generally well-known group, regularly make the mass media headlines through their daring stunts and have a good size of support from the public. Despite this,  back in 2013 the Government proposed £220 million cuts to legal aid, which would make legal assistance difficult ( source).

To conclude, the membership size and status are generally the 2 biggest factors in determining a pressure groups success, but it is vital to consider that pressure groups do not need these 2 factors to be successful, and some groups may be unsuccessful for other reasons than low finance and high status.