The Referendum And Its Impact On The Uk Constitution

1244 Words5 Pages
Many intellectuals such as T. Tridimas and V. Bogdanor believe that the referendum has once and for all asserted the supremacy of the people over Parliament as they are the one who decided to leave, and who had the final the say on the decision. To give my opinion on this statement, I will first examine the referendum and its impact on the UK constitution and then assess how Parliamentary sovereignty was affected by the decision to leave the European Union. The EU Referendum was held on 23 June 2016 and a majority of the electorate – by 52% to 48%, voted to leave the European Union, transforming the remote idea of Brexit into a very real event for which the timer was set. Indeed, for many, Brexit was an idea that the government had been…show more content…
It could be said that the latter was rattled by the referendum as it submitted Parliament’s actions to the people’s decision, however, this is not a position shared by everyone. The definitive impact of the referendum on the UK constitution is unknown but it is thought that it will bring upon it a radical change as “the status of an ‘unwritten’ or ‘uncodified constitution’ may well come to an end. Indeed, the whole process of leaving the Union has not even started yet and there is already a lot of uncertainty, most of it caused by the whole concept of the referendum. Dicey’s version of Parliamentary sovereignty was defined as its “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.” In the context of Brexit and the triggering of Article 50 there is a lot of discussion about Parliamentary Sovereignty. Brexit can be seen in two different ways: as a vote to re-assert the sovereignty of Parliament, or as a vote to undermine it. Indeed, this is an ongoing constitutional issue, the decision to leave was made by a referendum and not by a Parliamentary vote, this causes us to think that it is the people who have the say in this process and that Parliament should only follow their decision. However, the Miller case has shifted the balance by deciding that the government needed
Open Document