The United States ' Take Back Control

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

With diminishing control of what happens in Britain, the British people decided it was best to vacate the union. The British were dealing with the laws given by the European members who were not living and experiencing the country themselves. To provide an example of a ghastly law given to the British people, they, as part of the European Union, were only allowed to catch 20% of the fish swimming in British territorial waters. What this meant was that tens of thousands of jobs were lost and they were not able to use one of the most significant resources given to them, as Britain is surrounded by ocean. Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Independence Party, says that his fellow Englishmen, “effectively gave away the ability to look after one of our greatest resources to a bureaucracy based in Brussels.” Because of the way the government was set up, “Not only could the voters not change anything, but the institutes themselves are incapable of reform.” With an already maimed government, the European Union was creating more problems than it was solving. The British people had enough of giving up their rights as British citizens so the European Commission could tell them how to live. Therefore, with problems like those arising from the Union and with no hope to resolve them, Britain filed for secession and pulled out of the union

This report will look at the benefits and issues surrounding the UKs decision to remain as a member state of the European Union (E.U.). Along with the newly elected conservative government, came the announcement that a nationwide referendum would be held, by the end of 2017, in order to determine the British public’s stance on the issue of EU membership.

While the contributions of all member-states in the EU have been important and appreciated, the UK has brought a lot to the table that many other countries couldn’t. For example, the UK’s influence and the weight of just its name. For hundreds of years the UK has been powerful and if it had something to say, the world would listen. When the UK joined the EU it was a monumental victory for the existing member parties, because it meant that a powerful country, that could bring credibility and importance to a coalition previously lacking in both areas, would be joining their ranks.

What is Brexit? Brexit is the shorten way of referring to two words which are “British” and “Exit”. The situation that British exited from European Union. So, what is European Union? According to (Hunt,A. & Wheeler,B. 2016) The European Union - often known as the EU - is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries. The EU has a single market which is the agreement between the countries’ member in EU to allow goods, service, money or even people to move freely within the EU. The Single market was to create job employment, increase the trade and lower the prices. Even though, the European Union has many advantages but why British wanted to leave the Union? Because there are some disadvantages that had made British

This article explains the “on-going” argument of whether or not Britain should remain in the European Union or leave. Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to keep Britain apart, winning the backing of most of most of his Cabinet and the goal of rival parties. Cameron has made it clear Britain is safer and stronger in the EU. However, much of Britain believes in opposition to their membership among the the European Union, leaving this as a constant

The recent UK referendum sent shockwaves throughout the West and the wider world; few people had predicted that the British people would vote to leave the EU. So what led Brits to say a firm 'no thank you' to continued membership of the European Union? A look at surveys, statistics and anecdotal evidence may help us to solve this puzzle.

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

Apparently massive political decisions with far reaching socioeconomic repercussions should be made based on results from an indirect vote. Brexit was exactly that kind of decision, a whirlwind of policy and controversy. This summer past Englishmen and Englishwomen upsettingly voted to leave the EU. Both Kenneth Rogoff and Uri Friedman put in their two cents in the form of political articles regarding the outcome of the Brexit vote. Rogoff uses an aggressive narrative, making his opinion quite clear and concise whilst Friedman takes a more general approach, looking at more than one dimension of the Brexit vote. Friedman’s use of interdisciplinary sources and general opinions provide evidence for well supported arguments. The Rogoff article is without a doubt more succinct in writing, but with a set of underlying bias guiding the way, Friedman’s broader approach to writing makes his article an unbiased analysis of the Brexit vote. Rogoff’s aggressive writing style makes his argument very convincing, at the same time the Friedman

As it's political . . . The EU, as well as National Socialism and Communism remain the three major ideological scourges of the 20th century. The UK survived the horrors of the concentration camps and Gulags of the European 20th century, intentionally staying away from the isms arising from Europe and the EU remains no different. The decision whether to remain or leave went a lot deeper than economics or social justice and reflects the drive towards a Eurocommunism, disguised as equality and foisted onto populations by elite politicians using treaties. Moreover, the BREXIT regional and social demographics reflected already indoctrinated Millennials, who mainly voted for socialist dependency, typical of a mass-produced ‘selfie’ generation.

This essay will explore the extent of legislative power Parliament holds, specifically examining the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and Dicey’s rule of law. However, there is a school of thought that Devolution can undermine Parliaments supremacy, despite this it will be argued that within the UK constitution Parliament does have unlimited legislative

Various events and decisions, such as the devolution of states in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and the formation of the Republic of Ireland, can be argued as being more critical to the development of Britain than a decision to leave the European Union (“EU”). The legal reform of combining the courts of common law and equity can also be argued as being the most significant legal event in British constitutional history. Past Parliamentary decisions affecting the UK’s relationship with the EU, such as joining the EU and domestically incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights, can be argued as having more constitutional significance than the Referendum. Future Parliamentary decisions, such as a Scottish Referendum, could also be a more significant constitutional event by creating a possible precedent for other devolved states or dominions joining the

A vote to leave the EU would start a long and complicated process that would result in a fundamental change in the UK's relationship with other members of the EU. There are pros and cons should BREXIT were to follow through.

It is time for this nonsense to end. It was wrong of the Government to offer the public a binary choice on the EU without being willing – in the event that people voted Leave – to explain how this can be made to work in the interests of the UK and Europe. We cannot wait until mid-September, and a new PM. We need a clear statement, now, of some basic truths:

the United Kingdom unlike most other countries does not have a codified constitution to restrict the powers of the Parliament, the main check on power of the British Parliament is the sovereignty of the future parliaments. The European Union has been growing since its establishment and its growth has been considered a threat to the Parliamentary Sovereignty of the UK, since their joining of the EU in 1973. This essay will showcase the treaties, institutions, cases, and acts that have eroded the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and will conclude that the development of the EU will only further reduce the power of Parliamentary Sovereignty as long as the United Kingdom stays a member of the EU.