The emergence of pressure groups and lobbyists has also presented a threat to parliamentary sovereignty. These non-governmental groups will negotiate with ministers over issues and often policy proposals are drafted and then presented to parliament without its prior knowledge.
The fact that there is no formal separation of powers between the legislative and the executive is a major problem. In The US, Congress is an entirely separate body and has the power to hold the executive to account. In the UK, the executive is drawn from Parliament, meaning that is very difficult for Parliament to act as a check on the government. Only in times of small majority governments does the support of individual MPs really have an effect on the executive. This can be seen in the Conservative government under Major, where a vote of confidence in the government had to be called, and the Prime Minister even resigned in the face of backbench opposition to his leadership. (Kingdom, 1999, p394)
The fusion of the legislative and executive means that parliament has never been truly sovereign, and the power of MPs to check the executive is contingent on the majority of government and is not constitutional. The recent process of devolution in the United Kingdom also poses a threat to Parliamentary sovereignty.
Devolution is an issue which has already eroded Parliamentary sovereignty to a certain extent and threatens to do so more substantially in the future. Therefore redistribution of certain powers from Westminster to Wales and Scotland is obviously a key issue in the debate over parliamentary power. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in 1999 devolved many powers away from Westminster. In Scotland, the parliament was given control of economic development, education, the environment and local government amongst other things, and was given the power to vary income tax by three per cent. The Welsh Assembly, while less powerful, still has responsibility over many local government and agricultural issues.
Although devolution has so far meant that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are not fully ‘autonomous in few if any areas of public policy’ (Fisher(ed), 2003, p38), it has created a situation where Westminster isn’t either on many issues, meaning sovereignty is now effectively shared between the three bodies, albeit in a way which is still heavily weighted in London’s favour. The fact that the central UK Parliament does not have complete control over every region in Britain does mean that the process of devolution has worn its sovereignty away, even though to date the impact has not been huge. Another, more fundamental issue has arisen with the Britain’s decision to join the European Community and later the European Union.
Because of the supranational nature of the European Union, British membership has greatly affected the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. Britain now has to abide by rules and treaties set by the EU and European law which significantly hinder the UK’s independence of action. In other words, the British Parliament cannot pass laws which contravene EU treaties and regulations and has to follow these rules at all times. The European Communities Act of 1972 created a situation where all EU regulations and laws instantly apply to the UK without the assent of Parliament. The Act also gives EU law precedence over the law of the UK (Jones, 2001, p302). This was seen most notably in 1990 when a law was passed by the British Parliament to prevent the practice of ‘quota-hopping’ by Spanish fishermen. The EU blocked this law because it went against EU legislation on the freedom of movement of workers. (Fisher(ed), 2003, p124). The decisions of Parliament are no longer truly final, as other bodies, namely the European Court of Justice can set these decisions aside. If parliament in Britain were truly sovereign, then no other body would be able to do this. Britain now has to concede and compromise on some issues which would not normally be in her national interest to do so.
Although in theory parliament retains the power to repeal the European Communities Act, this would mean withdrawal from the EU itself. However, this could be deemed as a breach of EU treaty provisions, as membership within the Union is supposed to be perpetual. The advent of EU legislatory powers has affected the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in two major ways. Parliament no longer has the power to unmake any law, as it does not have the ability to repeal EU legislation. Parliament cannot pass laws which bind its successors, and now also cannot introduce legislation that will conflict with future proposed EU legislation. British Parliament is no longer the supreme law making body in the UK and has seen it sovereignty replaced by the sovereignty of the EU.
The European Union has seen the borders of the countries within it become less rigid and tariffs and the like relaxed. The world is becoming increasingly interconnected, and the EU is part of this globalisation process. Globalisation has also succeeded in eroding national, and therefore parliamentary sovereignty. As technology allows greater movement of information and goods, territorial boundaries become less important. Large multinational corporations (MNCs) now exist which transcend the sovereignty of nation states through their economic might. These corporations offer to trade with or establish themselves in countries in return for tax breaks or changes to environmental policy for example. This kind of behaviour can also be seen with lobbyists and pressure groups. These groups often liase directly with governmental departments, attempting to influence or introduce policies which correspond with their specific interests. Although these groups only exacerbate the existing problems of the weakness of the legislative vis-à-vis the executive, I still feel that they pose a threat, if only minor, to parliamentary sovereignty.
Modern Parliament in Britain, because of the reasons I have given above, seems to be far from sovereign. The dominance of the executive, from which all policy arises is one of the main causes of this. The party political system has created a situation, especially during spells of large majority governments, where the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can push through whatever legislation they wish with little fear of it being rejected or amended by Parliament. Although there is always the option of a vote of no confidence in the government, this is rare, and only succeeds in replacing one dominant executive with another similar one; it does not alter Parliament’s status. Government in the UK is through Parliament, not by it and what little power the legislative has over the executive rests in select committees. The eclipse of Parliament as the sole source of legislation in Britain by the EU has posed the biggest threat, in my opinion to its sovereignty. Parliament is now effectively inferior to Brussels in a number of ways, and has to adhere to its rules and regulations. The European Court of Justice can overturn Acts of Parliament; this goes against one of the fundamentals of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, that laws passed by parliament cannot be questioned by any court of law. Whilst parliament still has a say in most of the day to day affairs of the state, the supranational European Union still has the authority to impose its own legislation upon the UK, without needing the consent of Parliament. Devolution has drawn yet more power away from Westminster, with the creation of quasi-autonomous bodies in Scotland, and to a lesser extent, Wales. Parliament no longer has ultimate power over the entire United Kingdom and has to share sovereignty with other groups. Although the powers of the regional bodies are limited, Westminster no longer has the final say on a number of issues, and the Scottish Parliament in particular can make certain decisions on its own. Thus the British parliament is no longer the sole source of legislation. It has to share its sovereignty with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and has been superseded on matters of law by the European Court of Justice and other European organisations. Globalisation has also played a part in the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. Multi national corporations have become so economically powerful that the richest of them have a higher Gross Domestic Output than many countries. They can effectively dictate demands to governments in return for financial rewards. Although this is more of a contingent factor than a constitutional one, it cannot be underestimated in the argument over national sovereignty.
Although some believe that Parliament in Britain has never been truly sovereign for any long period of time, I feel that as the only publicly elected component of government, it should be the most powerful element in a democratic system of rule. The House of Commons is used by Cabinets to pursue their policies which may not be even in the public interest, the EU, the most powerful elements of which are not publicly elected, dictates to Parliament to a certain extent on a number of issues; and private businesses push their own agendas upon the government. All in all, I believe that the only elected organ of Britain’s government is no longer truly sovereign and has become essentially a talking shop and rubber stamp for government and EU legislation.
References
Kingdom, J (1999) Second Edition ‘Government and Politics in Britain: An Introduction’. Cambridge, Polity Press
Fisher, J; Denver, D; Benyon, J (eds) (2003) ‘Central Debates in British Politics’ London, Pearson Education Ltd.
Kavanagh, D (1996) ‘British politics: Continuities and Change’ Third Edition. New York, Oxford University Press
1995 ‘The case for reform’ Economist, Vol. 337 Issue 7936, p25
Bibliography
Kingdom, J (1999) Second Edition ‘Government and Politics in Britain: An Introduction’. Cambridge, Polity Press
Fisher, J; Denver, D; Benyon, J (eds) (2003) ‘Central Debates in British Politics’ London, Pearson Education Ltd.
Kavanagh, D (1996), Third Edition ‘British politics: Continuities and Change’. New York, Oxford University Press
Jones, B; Kavanagh, D; Moran, M; Norton, P (eds) (2001), Fourth Edition ‘Politics UK’ London, Pearson Education Ltd.
Dunleavy, P; Gamble, A; Holliday, I; Peele, G (eds) (1997), Fifth Edition ‘Developments in British politics’ London, Macmillan press Ltd.
Coates, D; Lawler, P (eds) (2000) ‘New Labour in Power’ Manchester, Manchester University Press
1995 ‘The case for reform’ Economist Vol. 337 Issue 7936, p25
1999 ‘Sovereignty and Globalism’ Information Society Vol. 15 Issue 1, p11
1999 Beer, Samuel H. ‘Strong Government and Democratic Control’ Political Quarterly Vol. 70 Issue 2, p146
1999 ‘Undoing Britain?’ Economist Vol. 353 Issue 8144, p16
1995 ‘The case for reform’ Economist Vol. 337 Issue 7936, p25
