Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the legal control the UK parliament has within UK constitution. Due to Brexit, many areas of governing have returned back to parliament and thus, this essay will argue that leaving the EU has decisively returned sovereignty to UK parliament.

some argue that sovereignty hasn’t fully shifted because Northern Ireland still remains part of the EU, meaning it is still subject to laws and the ECJ. Because of NI wanting to remain frictionless with the Republic, UK parliament doesn’t have full control over all parts of the kingdom. In trade areas, EU law takes precedence over UK law. For example, goods produced in NI must comply with EU law, such as strict guidelines on ingredients or production, even after the Windsor framework. The UK government could therefore be taken to the ECJ if it didn’t comply with EU laws that still apply in Northern Ireland. This shows how parliamentary sovereignty is still limited in relation to NI, as EU law is still higher law, with the ECJ enforcing this.

However, this argument is weak as Sunak introduced the Windsor framework to counteract this, moving goods from GB to NI have been vastly simplified. For example, in customs, trusted traders will enjoy smoother processes when transporting goods for end use in Northern Ireland. In agri-food, simplified documentation will facilitate the movement of retail foods for end consumers in NI. Instead, parliamentary sovereignty has increased as there is no longer a higher court that can strike down legislation that it passes. When Britain was a member of the EU, the UK accepted the supremacy of EU law over laws passed by parliament and this, the sovereignty of EU law. This means that if a law was passed by parliament that contradicted EU law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and Supreme Court could strike down and force them to remove it. For example, the supremacy of EU law was confirmed in the 1990 Factortame case, when the Law lords ruled that the merchant shipping act 1988 breached EU law as it required UK registered ships to have a majority of British owners, as a consequence, the UK parliament was forced to unmake the law. However, now that Britain has left the EU there is no higher court that can wield a veto over parliament, therefore increasing parliamentary sovereignty since Brexit.

Therefore, it is clear that the fact that the ECJ can no longer strike down laws passed by the UK parliament clearly shows the shift of sovereignty. Northern Ireland is only a slight limitation that continues to move towards being solved fully.

another argument is that in practice, much of the sovereignty regained from the EU is only exercised by the executive. Whilst it is true that the UK gained a lot of control over areas of policy previously controlled by the EU, this hasn’t been done by parliament. A great deal of EU law that has been incorporated into UK law has been done through secondary legislation/a statutory instrument (controlled by government) rather than primary legislation, meaning it wasn’t open to parliamentary scrutiny. It was the EU withdrawal act 2018 allowed ministers to create statutory instruments, these don’t require votes in parliament. therefore, there has been no sovereignty gained if laws have passed through the backdoor without scrutiny. An example of this is how the government has the power to make trade deals without parliamentary approval, only scrutinising deals one they’ve been agreed. The 2023 UK-Asia trade deal was signed without parliamentary consent. It can therefore be argued that the power of the executive has increased, rather than the sovereignty of parliament.

On the other hand, this argument is weak due to a number of Supreme Court cases, during the process of leaving the EU, strengthened parliamentary sovereignty against the executive.  critics point to the judiciary’s growing activism and influence in political matters- being dubbed by some as ‘politicians in robes’. There has been a blurring of the traditional distinction between the politicians who make the law, and the judges who apply it. For example, the article 50 case (Miller vs Secretary of State for exiting the EU) confirmed the majority vote in parliament was necessary to unmake a treaty that had originally required the consent of parliament. the case also ruled that the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments had no right to veto and Act of Parliament giving consent to article 50. Following this, the 2019 prorogation case (Miller vs PM) reaffirmed the sovereignty of parliament and protected its ability to hold the government to account against an overarching executive. Furthermore, despite the bill not going through by the desired date, Sunak has claimed that the Retained EU Law bill is still under consideration. Under this bill, most retained EU legislation will be revoked unless parliament either agrees to a delay or takes steps to assimilate it into UK domestic law, thus being open to parliamentary scrutiny.

And thus, the process of the EU can be seen as reaffirming parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the executive and ensuring that sovereignty regained from the EU goes to parliament and not government.

Those who support EU membership argued that sovereignty wasn’t lost through EU membership but pooled with the sovereignty of other counties, and the UK therefore gained influence on the global stage, something it couldn’t have on its own. Whilst in the EU, the UK was able to have its pooled sovereignty whilst also having opt outs from some EU policies it opposed, therefore limiting the amount of sovereignty lost. For example, Britain opted out from adopting the Euro as its currency as they weren’t willing to lose economic sovereignty and control over interest rates to the European central bank. Therefore, by leaving the EU the UK has actually lost overall sovereignty and influence of Parliament because of the reduction of greater global influence.

However, this argument is seen as biased, and sovereignty has clearly grown because parliament can now legislate on issues the EU used to have control over. When the UK was a member of the EU, they had little control over significant areas of trade, agriculture, fisheries, and general regulation. This therefore limited the extent to which Parliament was the key law-making body in the UK. For example, between 1993 and 2014 there were 231 acts of parliament passed that implemented EU obligations. Since Brexit, parliament has the power to legislate on all these areas of policy in any way it wants, rather than having to draft legislation that is in line with EU law. Specifically, the illegal immigration and the Rwanda bill show parliament taking back control over immigration. It can also be argued that parliament has regained a significant amount of its sovereignty from the UK government, as it used to be the PM in particular that represented Britain in EU negotiations over policy controlled by the EU, however this is no longer the case.

overall, parliamentary sovereignty has increased due to the ability of parliament to legislate on policy areas previously controlled by the EU.

In conclusion, it is clear that parliamentary sovereignty has significantly increased since leaving the EU. Whilst it is true that parliament isn’t completely sovereign over Northern Ireland, and that much of the regained sovereignty is exercised in practice by the executive, these should be seen as minor limitations. The fact that there is no longer a higher court that can strike down on parliament’s laws and that parliament can now legislate on policy areas previously controlled by the EU are major changes that result in a significant increase of sovereignty.

Nora