How would leaving the EU affect sovereignty?

Sovereignty is the main issue set to dominate the EU referendum campaign, but how much does the EU limit Britain's ability to make its own choices? How does EU membership constrict Britain’s ability to have decisions taken, policies set and laws made?
If the UK left the EU, parliament would have more power as it is a powerful institution within the UK, law can be passed without consultation with the EU and and sovereignty would increase.

If the UK left the EU, even though sovereignty will increase it may also spiral out of control. It would mean parliament would have complete power over the UK and pass and create any laws they want, without being stopped by the EU. Consequently, more mistakes can be made and the people may disagree with decisions creating lack of trust in politicians,

If the UK stayed in the EU, sovereignty will remain with the EU and there will be some control over what is passed by parliament. This gives opportunity to amend law if they are not suitable for the people of the country.

In conclusion, if the UK left the EU it could enable laws that benefit the UK as a country, instead of being dictated by what the EU want as it may be better suited to other countries within the EU. Therefore, the U.K. should leave the European Union and have ultimate power.

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK?

Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution.

AV Dicey wrote that Parliament “has under the British 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”.

Within the UK there are many places where sovereignty lies. One of these is political parties.

Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons. Combined with the dominance of political parties in elections. This has led to tight party control over MP’s and disciplined parliamentary groups that make the business of the House of Commons very predictable.

Another place in which sovereignty lies is with the public. At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years.

As the UK is part of the European Union they also play a part in the sovereignty. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament.

Finally, the last place sovereignty lies in the UK is with the executive. Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes – an ‘Elective Dictatorship’. Also backed by the Civil Service ‘machine’ it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, Prime Ministers who systematically repress the powers of party and parliament tend to meet their fate – Margaret Thatcher is a classic example of this.

What are the core primciples of the UK constitution?

The rules and regulations within which governments are allowed to operate are set out in constitutions. Most countries’ constitutions are ‘codified’, which means that they are largely made up of, or based around, a single written document incorporating key provisions. However, the UK does not have a codified constitution like this.
The UK does not have a single core constitutional document and is therefore sometimes referred to as not having a written constitution. However, the UK’s constitution is made up of some written documents, such as statute law, court judgments and European legislation, but has also developed from case law, common law, historical documents and custom. Therefore, it has more accurately been described as uncodified. Unwritten conventions deriving from understandings and customs are considered to be binding, despite not being  within statute or supported by law.
A historic feature of the UK constitution is the Royal Prerogative. These powers are formally exercised by the monarch acting alone, but in reality are exercised by government ministers. It gives the Crown many powers including the power to declare war, make treaties, deploy armed forces, appoint and dismiss ministers and dissolve parliament. In reality, the existence of the Royal Prerogative within the UK constitution means that the Government can exercise its powers without recourse to Parliament.
The most important principles of the UK constitution are those of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. The former means that Parliament can make or unmake any law without being bound by, or binding, its predecessors or successors respectively.
Parliamentary sovereignty therefore means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body, although this is now challenged by the UK’s European Union membership, which gives European laws superiority over any conflicting domestic law. Also, over the years, the application of parliamentary sovereignty has been limited by the passing of certain laws by Parliament, such as the Human Rights Act 1998.
The rule of law incorporates fundamental principles to which the Government and the law have to conform. For example, this includes the principle that ‘no person is punishable in body or goods without a breach of the law’, meaning that individuals will not be punished unless they have committed a clear breach of the law.

Should the UK develop a codified constitution? If so, why?

A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various parts of government and define the relationships between the state and individuals. Constitutions can be codified and uncodified, unitary and federal and rigid or flexible. the USA  have a codified constitution whereas the UK have an uncodified constitution.

If the UK introduced a codified constitution it would significantly affect the power of the government, the relationship between the executive and parliament, relationships between judges and politicians and also individual freedoms and rights. A codified constitution would result in making the rules of the country a lot clearer as they would all be in one single document and more clearly defined, compared to an unwritten constitution where the rules are spread across several documents. A codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of 'constitutional' rules and more faith in that they can be enforced.

Another reason the UK should develop a codified constitution is that it would create a limited government and reduce its size. A codified constitution could potentially end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the elected dictatorship. This type of dictatorship is known as a constitutional imbalance which means executive power is checked only by the need of the governments need to win elections. Within the UK, it is reflected in the ability of the government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains control of the House of Commons.

On the other hand, there are reasons why the UK should not develop this codified constitution. My first reason is that codified constitutions are seen as 'rigid'. For example, it is easier to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend a constitution. Uncodifed constitutions are seen as more flexible as they are not entrenched like codified constitutions. Codified constitutions cannot be changed quickly and easily, therefore it is more difficult to respond to political and social circumstances whatever they may be. Flexibility is seen as very important as they can be amended and modified to fit the 'ever changing' environment.

Another reason why the UK should not develop a codified constitution is that parliamentary sovereignty would basically abolished. Parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make, unmake or amend any law it wishes due to the existence of the constitution and potentially bills or rights. This is because a codified constitution would act as a form of 'higher law'. The codified constitution would undermine the idea of the UK's representative democracy.

In conclusion, I believe that the UK should not develop the codified constitution as flexibility is key and it would always be able to keep up with the changes going on and benefit the people, therefore it should remain uncodified so amendments can be made.

What is a constittion and why is it important?

Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.

The UK does not have a single core constitutional document and is therefore sometimes referred to as not having a written constitution. However, the UK’s constitution is made up of some written documents, such as statute law, court judgments and European legislation, but has also developed from case law, common law, historical documents and custom. Therefore, it has more accurately been described as ‘partly written and wholly uncodified’. Unwritten conventions deriving from understandings and customs are considered to be binding, despite not being enshrined within statute or supported by law.

The USA have an official constitution that is codified and it is important for many reasons within the states. It offers power to the people.

The main function of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The founding fathers of the USA came up with the Constitution. They knew that as the leader of the people, they were flawed in many ways, so as a measure of that they knew they should limit their power. The branches of the government, the president and his administration, the congress and the supreme court, are all under the rulings of the Constitution articles; if it’s not in there, they can’t do it. Each branch of the government has power over each other so none of the branches becomes too powerful. It is also established that the federal law and treaties that are Constitutional are the supreme law of the land. While the content of the Constitution could be changed, it also addresses that the Constitution is to be ratified.

However, the Constitution gets complex when the Bill of Rights is introduced which are the 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Whereas the original Constitution stated what the government can and should do, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the American, as well as the rights of the States. For example, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and rally, freedom to petition against a government ruling, the right to keep and bear arms (the American only defense against having a gun control, with argument that the Amendments could not be changed, ironic), the rights to be judged by a jury, the right to not be locked up forever, the right to have some privacy and many others. The Amendments states that it is not a complete list, just because a right isn’t listed doesn’t mean you can’t have it. It is called an amendment for a reason. It also states that the rights not given by the federal government are to be reserved by the people, something like ending the marijuana prohibition. The bill continued to be expanded since its introduction. There is a lot of power the people of America have, while there is very little that the federal government can do.

Until very recently, if the government doesn’t agree with some of the decisions made by the people, they need to get through the States to change it. Nowadays, people just interpret the Constitution in any way that suits them. The Constitution is outdated, but it is created that way to be continually updated. That’s what amendments are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How are pressure groups undemocratic?

  Pressure groups are organisations that set out to try and influence government policy. However some people see pressure groups as a threat to democracy.

The way in which some pressure groups try to get their point across can sometimes be seen as undemocratic, for example if they are marching in protest against a certain policy, and the march becomes violent. This is not democratic, and happened in the anti-capitalism protest. Often seen in UK uncut and Fathers4Justice.

Another way that pressure groups can be a threat to democracy is that they do not promote public stability. Pressure groups can actually cause conflict between groups of people instead of trying only to influence government policy. It is not democratic for a country to be fighting amongst them.

Pressure groups can also be seen as undemocratic in the way in which they choose their leaders. Leaders of pressure groups are very rarely voted in, and as a result, many people believe that the pressure groups do not put forward the views of all their members. This was believed to be the case in the Snowdrop Appeal. It was suggested that only the views of the leaders of the Appeal were put forward. This in itself is a threat to democracy.

On the other hand, pressure groups can be seen as good for democracy. The pluralist view is that it is undemocratic if the only way in which the public are involved in the running of the country is voting every five years. Pluralists believe that pressure groups are very good for democracy.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others? A pressure group is an organisation that may be formal or informal whose purpose is to further the interests of a specific section of society or to promote a certain cause; there are many reasons why a pressure group would want to do this too. There are various degrees of success with pressure groups, ranging from amending or passing Acts of Parliament to gaining public support. One thing that can alter a pressure group's success is whether the group is an insider or outsider group, and its relationship with the government. An insider group is one that operates within the political system and which normally has support from MP's, they are normally consulted by the government on matters that may affect the group or its members. The British Medical Association is an insider group and is consulted by the government regularly, recently they were included in discussions over the proposed NHS reforms and as a result of those talks the reforms were altered. Insider groups will have regular contact with MP's and other decision makers and so have more opportunities to influence them and their policies.

Pressure groups that use tactics and methods widely are more likely to be successful rather that groups that 'sit back' and that are not involved in any public demonstrations or petitions such a Tentelini, a group that isn't known to use any methods to gain attention or to influence the government. The membership of a pressure group and the support, especially celebrity support, that it holds can also determine its success. If a pressure group has support from celebrities, it can become more well known and also the celebrity can endorse the pressure group and increase its chances of success, unlike groups which aren't supported by any celebrity and which rely on other sources to increase the public awareness of the group. Many pressure groups are supported by celebrities such as Children in Need which is supported by Sir Terry Wogan, Amnesty International which is supported by Colin Firth and Beat Bulling which is supported by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The membership of a group can also lead to its success as with more members it can have a powerful impact on society.

The finance of a pressure group can also contribute to its success. If a group has secure financial backing, it has more money to spend on resources and towards organising things such as public demonstrations and advertising, for example GOSH raises over £50 million a year and those funds raised go towards funding the hospital and to funding future events. But if a group doesn't have secure financial aid then it can't afford to run and will not be able to fulfil its aims, such as the Occupy London group. Many pressure groups are successful because of a number of reasons, they may be a well publicised group with realistic aims and support from various high-profile celebrities. However other pressure groups may not be so successful as they may not have the support of the government or of the general public, like the more successful groups do. The success of a pressure group over another is due to many, and a combination of, reasons which includes having realistic aims, gaining the support of both the public and the government, being well organised and having a clear leader, having media support and holding good financial backing.