Introduction
The relationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) has been marked by both cooperation and contention, culminating in the historic decision to leave the EU, commonly known as Brexit, following a referendum in June 2016. This essay critically examines the evolving dynamics between the UK and the EU, focusing on the key factors that precipitated Brexit, with particular emphasis on the tensions arising from the Doctrine of Supremacy. This doctrine, which establishes the precedence of EU law over national law, has been a recurring point of friction in the UK’s legal and political landscape. The discussion will explore the historical context of the UK-EU relationship, the role of the Doctrine of Supremacy as articulated through EU law and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, and the broader socio-political factors that fuelled the Brexit narrative. By drawing on legal principles and critical analysis, this essay seeks to illuminate the complexities of this relationship and the underlying causes of the UK’s departure from the EU.
Historical Context of the UK-EU Relationship
The UK’s journey with the EU began in 1973 when it joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor to the EU, after previous unsuccessful attempts in the 1960s due to vetoes by France (Craig and de Búrca, 2020). Initially, the UK’s membership was driven by economic motivations, seeking access to the common market. However, the relationship was often uneasy, with the UK frequently adopting a pragmatic rather than enthusiastic stance towards integration. For instance, the UK opted out of key initiatives like the Euro currency and the Schengen Agreement on border controls, reflecting a preference for sovereignty over deeper integration (Geddes, 2013). This hesitancy was further evident in domestic political debates, with Euroscepticism gaining traction among certain political factions, particularly within the Conservative Party, and through the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 2000s. These historical dynamics set the stage for growing discontent, which ultimately contributed to the Brexit vote.
The Doctrine of Supremacy and Legal Tensions
At the heart of the legal tensions between the UK and the EU lies the Doctrine of Supremacy, a foundational principle established by the CJEU in the landmark case of Costa v ENEL (1964). This ruling asserted that EU law takes precedence over conflicting national laws, ensuring uniformity across Member States (Craig and de Búrca, 2020). For the UK, a nation with a strong tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, this principle posed significant challenges. The European Communities Act 1972 incorporated EU law into the UK’s legal system, effectively requiring British courts to prioritise EU legislation over domestic statutes. However, this was not without resistance. The UK judiciary, while generally compliant, occasionally expressed reservations about the extent of EU authority, as seen in cases like R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) (1991), where the House of Lords reluctantly disapplied a UK statute to uphold EU law on fishing rights (Weatherill, 2016).
Such decisions highlighted a fundamental clash between the UK’s constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the EU’s legal order. Critics in the UK argued that supremacy undermined national democratic control, a sentiment that resonated widely in political discourse. Indeed, high-profile CJEU rulings often became focal points for Eurosceptic narratives, portraying the EU as an overreaching authority. This legal tension, while not the sole driver of Brexit, undoubtedly contributed to the broader perception of lost sovereignty, a key theme in the 2016 referendum campaign.
Broader Factors Leading to Brexit
Beyond legal disputes, several socio-political and economic factors played a critical role in the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Immigration, particularly the free movement of persons under EU law (Article 45 TFEU), emerged as a contentious issue. While free movement facilitated economic benefits, it also sparked public concern over national identity and pressure on public services, especially in the wake of the 2004 EU enlargement which saw significant migration from Eastern Europe (Goodwin and Milazzo, 2017). The Leave campaign capitalised on these anxieties, framing Brexit as a means to ‘take back control’ of borders.
Economic grievances also fuelled discontent. Although the UK benefited from the single market, many voters in economically deprived regions felt alienated by globalisation and EU policies perceived as prioritising corporate interests over local needs. The 2008 financial crisis further exacerbated these sentiments, with austerity measures amplifying distrust in both national and EU institutions (Hobolt, 2016). Furthermore, the EU’s democratic deficit—criticism of its perceived lack of accountability—added to the narrative of an unrepresentative bureaucracy, a point often highlighted by Eurosceptic politicians.
Critical Evaluation of Supremacy-Related Tensions
While the Doctrine of Supremacy was a significant source of friction, it is arguably not the sole or even primary reason for Brexit. Legal scholars note that the UK judiciary largely adapted to EU law, albeit with occasional reluctance, demonstrating a pragmatic approach (Weatherill, 2016). Cases like Factortame illustrate that the UK courts were willing to uphold EU supremacy when required, suggesting that the legal system itself was not fundamentally incompatible with EU membership. Rather, the tension was more symbolic, exploited by political actors to amplify broader dissatisfaction with the EU. For instance, media portrayals of CJEU rulings often framed them as intrusions on British autonomy, even when the legal impact was limited.
On the other hand, the principle of supremacy did expose a genuine ideological divide. The UK’s unwritten constitution and emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty inherently conflicted with the EU’s supranational framework, a clash that could not be fully reconciled. Therefore, while the doctrine was not the direct cause of Brexit, it provided a potent symbol for Eurosceptics to rally around, encapsulating wider concerns about national identity and control.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between the UK and the EU has been shaped by a complex interplay of legal, political, and social factors, with the Doctrine of Supremacy serving as a focal point of tension. While the principle of EU law’s precedence over national law created genuine constitutional challenges, as evidenced by CJEU case law like Costa v ENEL and Factortame, its role in Brexit must be understood within a broader context of immigration concerns, economic discontent, and Eurosceptic narratives. The UK’s exit from the EU in 2020 marked the culmination of decades of unease, reflecting not just legal incompatibilities but a deeper desire for national autonomy. Moving forward, the legacy of these tensions will continue to influence the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU, raising critical questions about sovereignty, cooperation, and the future of international integration. This analysis underscores the multifaceted nature of Brexit, where legal doctrines like supremacy, though significant, are but one piece of a larger puzzle.
References
- Craig, P. and de Búrca, G. (2020) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 7th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Geddes, A. (2013) Britain and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Goodwin, M. and Milazzo, C. (2017) ‘Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(3), pp. 450-464.
- Hobolt, S. B. (2016) ‘The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent’, Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), pp. 1259-1277.
- Weatherill, S. (2016) Law and Values in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
