Introduction
This essay explores the multifaceted relationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU), focusing on the historical evolution of the EU, its institutional framework, the sources and application of EU law, remedies for breaches of EU law, and the law on free movement of goods and persons. Particular attention is paid to the tensions arising from the doctrine of supremacy, a central tenet of EU law, and how these tensions contributed to the UK’s decision to leave the EU through Brexit. By drawing on EU law, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and academic sources, this essay aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and political factors underpinning the UK-EU relationship. The discussion will culminate in an evaluation of the key issues that fueled Euroscepticism in the UK, ultimately leading to the 2016 referendum and subsequent withdrawal.
Historical Evolution of the European Union
The EU’s origins lie in the aftermath of World War II, with the aim of fostering economic cooperation to prevent further conflict in Europe. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, marked the first step towards integration among six founding members: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. This was followed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), focusing on a common market and customs union (Craig and de Búrca, 2020). The UK joined the EEC in 1973 after initial hesitations, reflecting early tensions over sovereignty and economic alignment. Subsequent treaties, such as the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which established the EU and introduced concepts like European citizenship, and the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which reformed institutional structures, deepened integration. However, for the UK, each step towards closer political union amplified concerns over national autonomy, setting the stage for future discord.
Principal Institutions of the EU: Composition, Role, and Function
The EU operates through a complex institutional framework designed to balance supranational and intergovernmental interests. The European Commission, composed of one commissioner per member state, acts as the executive body, proposing legislation and monitoring compliance with EU law. The European Parliament, directly elected by EU citizens, represents the public and shares legislative power with the Council of the European Union, which comprises ministers from member states and rotates its presidency every six months. Together, these bodies adopt EU legislation, often through the ordinary legislative procedure (Craig and de Búrca, 2020). The European Council, made up of heads of state or government, sets the EU’s strategic direction but does not legislate. Finally, the CJEU ensures the uniform interpretation and application of EU law, playing a pivotal role in disputes over supremacy—a recurring issue in UK-EU relations. These institutions collectively advance EU policies, though their supranational nature often clashed with the UK’s preference for intergovernmental cooperation.
Sources of EU Law and Integration into Member States
EU law derives from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include the treaties, such as the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which form the constitutional backbone of the EU. Secondary sources encompass regulations, directives, and decisions issued by EU institutions. Regulations are directly applicable in member states, while directives require transposition into national law, allowing some flexibility in implementation (Foster, 2021). EU law is made through legislative processes involving the Commission, Parliament, and Council, ensuring democratic input. Once adopted, EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law under the doctrine of supremacy, as established in Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64), where the CJEU ruled that EU law constitutes an independent legal order binding on member states (CJEU, 1964). In the UK, the European Communities Act 1972 facilitated the integration of EU law into the domestic legal order, though tensions arose as parliamentary sovereignty—a cornerstone of UK constitutional law—appeared compromised.
Remedies for Breaches of EU Law at EU and National Levels
Remedies for breaches of EU law are available at both EU and national levels to ensure compliance. At the EU level, the Commission can initiate infringement proceedings against member states under Article 258 TFEU, potentially leading to CJEU rulings and financial penalties. For instance, persistent non-compliance may result in lump-sum fines or penalty payments (Foster, 2021). At the national level, individuals can invoke EU law before domestic courts, relying on the principle of direct effect, as established in Van Gend en Loos (Case 26/62), which allows certain EU provisions to confer rights enforceable by citizens (CJEU, 1963). Additionally, the principle of state liability, developed in Francovich (Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90), enables individuals to seek compensation from member states for damages caused by breaches of EU law (CJEU, 1991). While these mechanisms strengthen enforcement, they also highlight the tension between national sovereignty and EU obligations, a recurring grievance in the UK context.
Law on Free Movement of Goods and Persons
The free movement of goods and persons constitutes a cornerstone of the EU’s single market. Under Articles 34-36 TFEU, quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, as well as measures having equivalent effect, are prohibited between member states, subject to limited exceptions like public health or security. The CJEU’s ruling in Cassis de Dijon (Case 120/78) introduced the principle of mutual recognition, whereby goods lawfully marketed in one member state can be sold in another unless justified restrictions apply (CJEU, 1979). Similarly, free movement of persons, enshrined in Articles 20-21 TFEU, grants EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the Union, a principle upheld in cases like Baumbast (Case C-413/99), which extended residence rights to family members (CJEU, 2002). However, in the UK, free movement of persons became a contentious issue, with public discourse often focusing on immigration control as a driver of the Brexit vote, illustrating the clash between EU ideals and national priorities.
Tensions Over the Doctrine of Supremacy and the Road to Brexit
The doctrine of supremacy, a fundamental principle of EU law, has been a persistent source of tension between the UK and the EU. As articulated in Costa v ENEL, EU law prevails over conflicting national legislation, requiring member states to set aside incompatible domestic rules (CJEU, 1964). In the UK, this doctrine challenged the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty, the notion that Parliament can make or unmake any law without external constraint. The CJEU’s ruling in Factortame (Case C-213/89), which mandated the disapplication of a UK statute restricting fishing rights, underscored this conflict, as the House of Lords was compelled to prioritise EU law over national legislation (CJEU, 1990). Such decisions fueled Eurosceptic sentiment, with critics arguing that EU law undermined democratic accountability.
Beyond legal tensions, political and economic factors contributed to Brexit. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent austerity measures amplified public dissatisfaction, often directed at the EU. The 2015-2016 migration crisis further intensified debates over free movement, with UK political discourse framing EU membership as a loss of control over borders (Goodwin and Milazzo, 2017). The 2016 referendum, resulting in a 51.9% vote to leave, reflected these cumulative frustrations. While the UK officially exited the EU on 31 January 2020 following the Withdrawal Agreement, the underlying issues of sovereignty and supremacy remain relevant in ongoing trade and regulatory negotiations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between the UK and the EU has been shaped by a complex interplay of legal, political, and economic factors. The historical evolution of the EU towards deeper integration, coupled with the supranational nature of its institutions and the doctrine of supremacy, created persistent tensions with the UK’s constitutional principles and public sentiment. The application of EU law, remedies for breaches, and the free movement of goods and persons further highlighted areas of friction, particularly over issues of sovereignty and immigration. The Brexit referendum and subsequent withdrawal represent the culmination of these longstanding issues, with the doctrine of supremacy serving as a lightning rod for Eurosceptic arguments. Moving forward, the UK-EU relationship will continue to evolve, though the fundamental question of balancing national autonomy with international cooperation remains unresolved. This analysis underscores the challenges of reconciling diverse legal traditions within a supranational framework, a lesson with broader implications for the future of European integration.
References
- Craig, P. and de Búrca, G. (2020) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 7th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Foster, N. (2021) EU Law Directions. 8th edn. Oxford University Press.
- 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.
- CJEU (1963) Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, Case 26/62, European Court Reports.
- CJEU (1964) Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64, European Court Reports.
- CJEU (1979) Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), Case 120/78, European Court Reports.
- CJEU (1990) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd, Case C-213/89, European Court Reports.
- CJEU (1991) Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy, Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, European Court Reports.
- CJEU (2002) Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case C-413/99, European Court Reports.
