“Membership of the Institutions of the European Union is Incompatible with Parliamentary Sovereignty”
Concerns about political and economic unification are more common in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union member state. National legislatures seem to lose some of their sovereignty if the European Union is given increased powers. Since the United Kingdom accepted the Treaty of Accession in 1972, 2,900 regulations and 410 directives have been incorporated to English law. The legal proceedings involving Factortame that occurred in 1990 and 1991 are another source of concern where European Community law prevailed against the Merchant Shipping Act of 1988. Many individuals believe that these rulings call into doubt the sovereignty of Parliament. The immutable concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of the British legal system, helps to guarantee that parliament retains control. Unlike many other nations, the United Kingdom lacks a codified constitution that outlines the scope of the government’s authority. Because laws may be modified at any time, treaties can be broken, and EU membership is never really binding, the only thing that restricts Parliament’s power is the sovereignty of future legislatures. A person or organization cannot use English law to invalidate or overturn a law created by Parliament since Parliament has the sovereign authority to pass or alter any legislation at any moment, yet, EU membership dictates a number of laws especially where conflict arises, thus raising the question of incompatibility.
No other institution has the authority to prevent Parliament from adopting new legislation, changing current legislation, or repealing any laws. The admission of the United Kingdom into the European Union posed the greatest challenge to the authority of parliament. This is because, where national law and EU law disagree, EU legislation is seen as having more weight. When this occurs, member states are obligated to amend their domestic legislation to conform to the applicable EU norm. Before enacting the European Communities Act in 1972, the United Kingdom was aware of the limitations on its sovereignty imposed by European Court of Justice case law. The European Communities Act of 1972 granted the United Kingdom the legal right to join the European Union. By merging EU legislation into domestic law, Section 2(1) of the Act granted all EU laws legal effect in the United Kingdom.
There is a correlation between Parliamentary Supremacy and EU membership, ensuring that these two institutions operate in tandem with national and European Union Community laws. It is crucial to keep in mind that only in cases where EU member states have chosen to delegate authority to the EU does EU law predominate. These include the infrastructure, environmental regulations, and the common market, among other things, but remains irrelevant in regards to social policy and taxes. The EU’s supremacy in legislative matters is not always acknowledged, however. For instance, directives do not supersede until they have been implemented into national law and are relevant, but EU rules do because of their immediate effect on national law. Regulations that are “directly effective” and provisions that are “directly applicable” are two different categories of legal impact recognized by the European Union. According to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the only types of legislation that may be deemed as “directly applicable” are treaty provisions and regulations. They immediately become a part of national law as a consequence of the member states’ participation in the EU and do not need the adoption of any enabling legislation by the member states. This suggests that the member countries do not need to pass any enabling legislation. The term “directly effective” was created by the European Court of Justice in the context of Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos and is not contained in any treaty. Any provision that is clear and unambiguous enough to be used as evidence in legal actions before national courts is referred to by this phrase. Directly applicable rules need new legislation from each member state in order to implement EU directives into their own national legal systems.
Parliamentary Supremacy is a crucial idea in the British Constitution, granting Parliament supreme legislative authority. This concept serves as the basis for the judicial system as well, seemingly invalidating any sense of legislative primacy, emphasizing that EU law is superior. When there is a dispute between a component of EU law and a component of the law of a member country (national law), the concept of the primacy of EU law mandates that EU law takes precedence. This concept is often called “precedence.” If this were not the case, EU member states might simply allow their national laws to take priority over main or secondary EU legislation, making it impossible to implement EU policy. The concept of EU law’s preeminence has evolved through time as a result of the case law (jurisprudence) published by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Despite a short term introduced to the Lisbon Treaty, it is not codified in any EU treaty. In Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62), the European Court of Justice ruled that regulations set by European institutions must be incorporated into the legal systems of EU states, which must then comply with these laws. Consequently, EU law has priority over national legislation. The supremacy of EU law must be applied to all national acts, irrespective of when they were adopted relative to the relevant EU statute. As EU law is now seen as superior to national law, the concept of primacy strives to guarantee that all EU countries provide the same level of protection under EU law.
Even when European Community law and domestic law clash, European Community law is more important and takes precedence. This essentially violates the notion of sovereignty, since Parliament is no longer the ultimate lawmaking body, and some aspects of Community law may reverse its decisions and influence the legislative process. The term emphasizes the supremacy of European law over national law, even where the two are incongruous. Alternatively, it is essential that European law continue to take precedence over national law in order to ensure consistency across the Community and the formation of a single market. Individual member states of the European Union giving their own national laws precedence over European Community law would be detrimental to the legal standing of the Community as a whole and may possibly threaten its very existence. This argument is supported by a 1979 ruling of the European Court of Justice in Hauer v. Land Rhineland-Pfalz. In that judgement, the court found that subordinating Community law to national law would undermine the creation of a coherent single market, eventually leading to the disintegration of the Common Market.
All immediately applicable European legislation is incorporated in the body of national law, whether it has already been established or will be developed in the future. A “directly applicable law” is a piece of European law that applies directly to the legal system of a Member State without the need for further legislation. As a result, any rights or duties established by the treaty must have immediate legal force in England. This contradicts the constitutional concept of parliamentary sovereignty since directly applicable European legislation is instantaneously merged into national law in the United Kingdom without the necessity for Parliament to adopt or reject the measure. If directly applicable Community law, such as a rule or provision of a Treaty Article, and domestic law, such as a legislation, are in conflict, there is a danger of misunderstanding. Because paragraph (1) of section 2 clearly states that directly applicable legislation becomes an instant component of national law, Community law will take precedence over national law. Given that Parliament in the United Kingdom is obligated to approve immediately relevant European Union legislation, one may argue that Parliament is no longer the supreme authority for making laws.
The precise shape that European Community law takes, which might be any of a number of different forms, influences how it impacts the national legal systems of Member States. When establishing which types of European regulations take precedence over local law, it is critical to differentiate between immediately applicable and directly effective legislation. There are laws that apply instantly and laws that have an immediate effect. As previously indicated, directly applicable laws are those that are incorporated into the relevant Member State without the need for additional legislation to be approved by the relevant Member State. While something is only considered to have direct impact if it provides people with rights on which they may depend and which are protected by their own national courts. Given this, it is logical to infer that the question of whether private parties may enforce directly applicable laws in sovereign state courts falls within the purview of direct impact. Direct horizontal and vertical collisions are also conceivable. The term “vertical direct impact” refers to a situation in which a Member State’s courts may apply the law against it. Horizontal direct effect, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a law may be used against another person in a Member State’s courts.
Nonetheless, as Britain entered the European Union voluntarily and retains the legal ability to withdraw at any moment, it can be argued that the country’s parliament maintains supremacy and sovereignty. That Parliament maintains its sovereign status as the institution with the most authority, as shown by the option to leave the Community, is without dispute. Leaving the EU would give the British government complete control over domestic policy again. British courts would uphold a British legislation even if it were found to be in conflict with European law, so long as the Act in issue expressly declared that its provisions should take precedence over European law. However, proving this is difficult since it presumes the British government will violate the terms of the treaty, which is very improbable. UK participation in the EU has had a direct and profound impact on the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. No longer can Parliament be considered the supreme legal power, capable of passing or rescinding any legislation at will. In addition, laws need to be consistent with various aspects of Community law; this obviously lessens sovereignty while highlighting the preeminence of Community law, and highlighting the incompatibility of two sovereign institutions governing the UK and the European Union Community.
Bibliography
Brack, Nathalie, Ramona Coman, and Amandine Crespy. “Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity.” Journal of European Integration 41, no. 7 (2019): 817-832.
Connolly, Christopher K. “Independence in Europe: secession, sovereignty, and the European Union.” Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 24 (2013): 51.
Egeberg, Morten, and Jarle Trondal. “Why strong coordination at one level of government is incompatible with strong coordination across levels (and how to live with it): The case of the European Union.” Public Administration 94, no. 3 (2016): 579-592.
Elliott, Mark. “United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure.” Int’l J. Const. L. 2 (2004): 545.
Ene, Marilena. “Van Gend en Loos Case.” Tax Mag. (2021): 304.
Ewing, Keith. “Brexit and parliamentary sovereignty.” The Modern Law Review 80, no. 4 (2017): 711-726.
Gordon, Michael. “The UK’s Sovereignty Situation: Brexit, Bewilderment and Beyond….” King’s Law Journal 27, no. 3 (2016): 333-343.
Heppell, Timothy, Andrew Crines, and David Jeffery. “The United Kingdom referendum on European Union membership: The voting of conservative parliamentarians.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 55, no. 4 (2017): 762-778.
Otjes, Simon, and Harmen Van Der Veer. “The Eurozone crisis and the European Parliament’s changing lines of conflict.” European Union Politics 17, no. 2 (2016): 242-261.
Trindade, F. A. “Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy of European Community Law.” Mod. L. Rev. 35 (1972): 375.
