British Politics and European Integration Law European Essay
Critical assessment of the impact of EU membership on British sovereignty.
For a long time, the process of European integration for the UK has been a cumbersome and difficult process, with the capacity to consistently create internal and external divisions among the main political parties, with the impact on British sovereignty being the most controversial factor. The first part of this essay focuses on examining the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty as advocated by AV Dicey, including several other dimensions of sovereignty, and then sets out the two main concepts to be used for its application in this paper , The second part deals with the analysis of different aspects of EU membership and their relationship and contrast between the different views of sovereignty. These include areas such as the primacy of EU law, the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) and a range of other political factors such as opt-outs and party statecraft. It argues that while the supremacy of parliamentary sovereignty was undoubtedly overridden by the EU, the basis of absolute supremacy is questionable, since sovereignty is increasingly viewed as pluralistic and relative even in times of such tremendous global change.
The importance of sovereignty is largely controversial, as Michael Newman concludes that sovereignty has become so distorted and ambiguous that the term “is now an obstacle to analysis” [ 1 ] . Therefore, it is necessary to first discuss the different concepts before they are applied.
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty advocated by AV Dicey states that “parliamentary sovereignty is the dominant feature of our political institutions” [ 2 ]. In particular, this view of British sovereignty questions the ability to operate independently of supranational rule and to be central to concerns about the impact of EU membership. The popular concept of sovereignty derives from the popular consent and focuses on the relationship between state and people such as freedom, individual rights and democracy. Moreover, the state dimension of sovereignty implies that supreme decision-making power lies within the state and that nation-states are key players in international affairs. Moreover, it can be subdivided into territorial elements (physical legitimacy limits), functional elements (limits of the economic and social role of the state) and an external component whose citizens are the sole responsibility of the state [ 3 ] . Such dimensions will be helpful in assessing certain areas of EU supremacy. Constitutional sovereignty focuses on the place of sovereignty within a state, bearing in mind that parliamentary legislation can not be overruled by any higher authority, and legislative competence on any subject – possible contradictions of the predominance of EU law that governs Sovereignty, become apparent again.
These dimensions of sovereignty can generally be divided into two broad positions. The first conception of sovereignty as the highest legal authority possessed by an institution like Parliament (absolutism), and the second view of sovereignty as a real measure of control that a nation can exercise. The first census regards membership in the EU as a direct transfer or loss of sovereignty, while the second envisages “pooling sovereignty”, increasing the ability to work together to benefit everyone. In order to effectively analyze the impact of EU membership on British sovereignty , these two definitions will serve as a means of measuring relevant evidence and as a sound basis for comparisons and analysis.
Since becoming a full member of the EU in 1973, Britain has signed a number of treaties. Those who pursue an absolutist line of sovereignty will see this as a direct transfer of power to the EU institutions. The following section will analyze such effects of membership .
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has laid down two basic principles of EU law in two landmark cases: direct effect and supremacy. In the Case Van Gend en Loos (1963) is a Dutch transport company with higher customs duties faced after a product imported from the Federal Republic of Germany chemical product had been re-classified. The court ruled that “the Community constitutes a new legal system of international law in favor of which states have restricted their sovereignty, albeit in limited areas, and the issues of which not only the Member States but also their nationals” [ 4 ] . In this case, it was noted that a provision was broken, requiring members to gradually lower tariffs. The judgment notes that not only Member States are subject to the primacy of EU law, but also individuals within those Member States. This gave rise to the principle of direct effect, whereby Community law can be enforced by the courts of the Member States, and Parliament’s ability to act as the supreme legal body is completely disproved by that decision. The second case of Costa against ENEL (1964) was brought forward when an Italian citizen refused to pay the newly nationalized electricity company a utility bill because nationalization violated EU law. The ruling concluded that, if there is a difference between EU and national law, EU law has a higher authority and thus a supremacy over the individual Member States. “By creating a community … [with] its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity … the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit in limited areas, and thus created a legally binding structure for both their nationals and citizens also himself ” [ 5 ] . This decision also extends to conflicting with the sovereignty of the people. The rights of individuals and democracy are no longer territorial for the responsible EU.
Such decisions were made in Britain by the notorious factortame case (1990) , in which the ECJ ruled that the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act was invalid and incompatible with Community law. As a result, for the first time in history, Parliament had to “reject” the law. This is contrary to AV Dicey, where “the right to legislate or abrogate, whatever, and moreover, that under English law no person or entity has the right to suspend or repeal the legislation of Parliament” , [ 6 ] Conversely, it can be argued that membership in the EU will always be provisional and unconditionally so that Parliament can cancel all previous EU decisions, which means that sovereignty is never completely abandoned. The credibility of such views is questionable given the likelihood of Britain’s complete withdrawal from the EU , which in the short term is not excluded but unlikely. The highest instance of Parliament is therefore clearly challenged.
Sweet argues that the European Court of Human Rights is essentially a constitutional court with the ability “to have a decisive influence on the development of a rights-based, Europe-wide constitutionalism” [ 7 ] . This case-by-case approach of the ECJ provided the basis for Community law and is supported by Weiler, which claims that:
“The constitutional thesis claims that the community has evolved in critical aspects and behaves as though its founding instrument were not a contract subject to international law but, to use the language of the European Court of Justice, a constitutional charter, a constitutional form is subject to law “. [ 8 ]
However, the competences available to the EU are limited in certain areas and are considered practical for the natural functioning of the Community. For example, there are certain areas, such as education, where there is no Community law. It recognizes that many policies are best carried out by the members themselves. In addition, directives serve to reconcile the dual objectives of the EU and the Member States by aiming to harmonize the law throughout the Union, while respecting the diversity of national traditions and structures , and to bind a national and national goal To leave it to the authorities to decide on it is put into practice [ 9 ] . This is irrelevant to many critics . Anthony King notes that Britain has joined the EEC:
“Parliament not only ceased to be sovereign, but the UK itself has ceased to be an old-fashioned sovereign state, and the fact that it is a member of the EU permeates almost the entire British government – to a far greater extent than most Britons seem to be realizing ” [ 10 ] .
To pursue such a maximalist line against the delegation of powers is in turn based on the fact that AV Dicey and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty are “the cornerstone of the law of the constitution” [ 11 ] . Bogdanor addresses this by arguing that the defense of modern sovereignty is an abstract idea based on common law and little else [ 12 ] . This raises questions about the assumptions of doctrines and whether they are still relevant in modern times.
Another argument is that membership has deprived Parliament of the legitimacy to bring democracy to the British people. For example, even if Britain voted against a specific decision, it could possibly be passed by the majority of its members and imposed on British citizens. Neill Nugent supports this by describing how “the level of sovereignty loss by membership was substantial and the momentum of this loss has greatly increased since the mid-1980s “. [ 13 ] The continued strengthening of EC institutions such as the Council of Ministers can only help accelerate integration and continue to deprive Member States of control over their native populations. As such, this represents an erosion of state and popular sovereignty dimensions.
Maintaining the Luxembourg compromise, which allows Member States to veto cases where a key national interest or delegation of parliamentary powers is at stake, is a measure of control for Britain. This was recently used by Britain, the Fiscal Compact Treaty, which would have seen stricter fiscal compliance than under the Union. Cameron said that “if I could not get proper guarantees for Britain in a new European treaty, I would not agree with that” [ 14 ] . However, this reinforces the idea of a “two-pronged” Europe in which some states agree to pool sovereignty, while others select and select aspects that they believe will allow them to maintain aspects of sovereignty. This could be a wrong judgment ; The following section deals with the topic, in which sovereignty is interpreted as an influence rather than a supreme authority.
The ABC of Community law states that the “national identities of the Member States are respected” and that “Member States should not be” dissolved “into the EU, but that they make their own contributions” [ 15 ] . The idea is that the EU will have its moral authority through a wide range of national characteristics that can be used for the benefit of all its members. This is where the concept of “pooling sovereignty” emerges, in which states give certain competencies to the EU in order to create the capacity for something bigger. Howe describes how “sovereignty is not a predefined absolute, but a flexible, adaptive, organic term that evolves and adapts to circumstances” [ 16 ] . Such an idea is an alternative where parliamentary authority has not been lost but channeled into a higher-level institution. The crux of the matter, however, is solely whether the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is absolute or whether it can be interpreted as contributing to and accepting EU supremacy.
Anderson and Weymouth distinguish between real and theoretical sovereignty. While real sovereignty was mentioned earlier than the degree of control of a nation, theoretical sovereignty rather represents a symbolic control that has no real substance. For example; The retention of the pound sterling is often viewed by the tabloid press and euro skeptics as a measure of genuine sovereignty. Joining the euro currency would sacrifice our independence, the loss of interest rate control and monetary policy for Europe. However, the medium to long-term average of the UK exchange rate is largely determined by decisions of the US, German, Japanese and global economies as a whole [ 17 ] . This restricts Britain’s ability to take meaningful, independent action and supports the idea that the pound sterling is more theoretical than truly sovereign. This argument therefore argues that sovereignty was not undermined by EU accession and that decisions taken by countries are now (and for some time) dictated to such an extent by external market forces that they can not hope to ever fight against it with individual. For such countries, pooling sovereignty within the EU creates greater capacity to work together internationally by creating a large trading bloc or introducing a single currency. Howe supports this view in which the sovereignty is actually strengthened by the fact that actively involves itself in international institutions like the EU and the “practical capacity to maximize its influence in the world” increased [ 18 ] .
Those who oppose European integration often argue that the final product of the EU will be the “United States of Europe,” in which a strong centralized state replaces the existing nation-states and relies on its own identity, legitimacy, and powers concentrated. A different view creates a novel political system, the first post-modern state where economic and political policies, jurisdictions and institutions overlap [ 19 ] . The nation-state transfers some functions to EU institutions, but retains full control over a range of decision-making powers – national sovereignty is qualified and limited, but not limited [ 20 ] .
Pro-Europeans see no reason to fear that increasing integration into the EU undermines national sovereignty, provided that integration strengthens common interests and allows members to act in their interests. Alan James comments on what is emerging in Europe as a reorientation and advocacy rather than an aging of sovereign statehood [ 21 ] . This “pooling” of sovereignty creates an intergovernmental framework in which mutual cooperation can address global problems that otherwise independently problematic would be . Newman even admits that the sovereignty of the state could actually be strengthened by the integration of Britain into the EU [ 22 ] ; where a balance of power is maintained for states to maintain some aspects of individual autonomy. Moreover , the granting of parliamentary sovereignty on this issue would have no real impact if the policies are the same regardless of the intergovernmental regime .
An alternative view of sovereignty through party politics The conservatives have historically viewed the defense of sovereignty as a key issue in terms of European integration. [ 23 ] . Thatcher’s attempt to secure the SEA (1986), which did not promote further political integration, until the resignation of Major from the controversial Social Chapter in the Maastricht Treaty (which contained guidelines on labor and social legislation), appears to the conservative party to be particularly sensitive in the defense of parliamentary authority. New Labor was more pro-European, and Blair signed the Social Chapter in 1997. This shows how the effects on sovereignty differ between the parties in power. The Conservatives considered it an attacking authority, while Labor tended to pool sovereignty to gain influence in Europe.
To summarize, the impact of sovereignty on EU membership varies according to the controversial, fragmented and diverse definitions of sovereignty. Maximistically, where sovereignty is equated with Parliament’s ultimate authority, there has undoubtedly been an erosion of authority. This applies in particular to the supremacy of EU law as interpreted by the ECJ, the extension of quality assurance, which raises questions of democratic accountability, and the ability of the British authorities to claim power over their people. Instead, those who see membership as “pooling sovereignty” recognize that in a globalized world there are limitations to the internal sovereignty and autonomy of individual states , which seems to be a far more pragmatic and realistic answer. It would be naive to see sovereignty in absolute terms, as global economic and political forces have undermined their internal relevance. Sovereignty must be viewed from the perspective of a multi-dimensional concept; it embodies personal, social, local and global factors – it can no longer be bound only to the domestic, but it embodies global influence.
