Introduction
The relationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) has been historically complex, marked by periods of cooperation and significant tension, culminating in the UK’s decision to leave the EU through Brexit in 2016. This essay critically examines the dynamics of this relationship, focusing on the factors that contributed to Brexit, with a particular emphasis on the Doctrine of Supremacy in EU law. The Doctrine, which asserts the precedence of EU law over national law, has been a persistent source of friction, often challenging the UK’s notion of parliamentary sovereignty. By exploring EU law, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and other relevant sources, this essay will identify where tensions arose and evaluate their role in the broader context of Brexit. The discussion will proceed by first outlining the historical relationship between the UK and EU, then examining key factors leading to Brexit, and finally delving into specific clashes over the Doctrine of Supremacy.
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), a decision driven by economic imperatives but met with domestic scepticism over loss of sovereignty (George, 1998). From the outset, the UK adopted a pragmatic rather than enthusiastic approach, often seeking opt-outs from deeper integration, such as its exemption from the single currency and Schengen Area. This euroscepticism was rooted in a fundamental divergence between the UK’s tradition of parliamentary sovereignty and the EU’s supranational framework, which required member states to cede certain legislative powers. Indeed, while the UK benefited economically from membership, including access to the single market, public and political discourse frequently framed EU involvement as a constraint on national autonomy (Daddow, 2013). This tension set the stage for broader dissatisfaction, which would later crystallise in the Brexit referendum.
Factors Leading to Brexit
Several interconnected factors contributed to the UK’s decision to leave the EU, with sovereignty concerns at the forefront. First, economic grievances played a significant role; many British citizens felt that EU membership imposed burdensome regulations and financial contributions without commensurate benefits. For instance, the UK was one of the largest net contributors to the EU budget, fuelling narratives of unfairness (HM Treasury, 2016). Second, immigration became a lightning rod issue during the 2016 referendum campaign. The free movement of persons, a core EU principle, was perceived by some as straining public services and altering cultural landscapes, particularly in the context of the 2015 migrant crisis (Goodwin and Milazzo, 2017).
However, perhaps the most profound factor was the sovereignty debate, epitomised by the phrase “take back control.” Many in the UK, including prominent political figures, argued that EU membership eroded the ability of Westminster to govern independently. This sentiment was particularly strong regarding the role of EU law and its enforcement by the CJEU, which often overruled domestic decisions under the Doctrine of Supremacy. The cumulative effect of these factors—economic discontent, immigration concerns, and sovereignty frustrations—created a fertile ground for the Leave vote, with 51.9% of referendum participants opting to exit the EU in June 2016 (Electoral Commission, 2016).
The Doctrine of Supremacy: A Source of Legal Tension
The Doctrine of Supremacy, established in the landmark CJEU case of Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64, 1964), asserts that EU law takes precedence over conflicting national laws, binding member states to comply even when it contradicts domestic legislation. While this principle is central to ensuring the uniform application of EU law, it directly challenges the UK’s constitutional tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that no authority can override Acts of Parliament (Dicey, 1885). This inherent conflict became a recurring source of tension, evident in several key instances.
One notable clash arose in the case of R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) (Case C-213/89, 1990). Here, the CJEU ruled that UK courts must disapply national legislation that contravened EU law, specifically regarding fishing rights under the Single European Act. The House of Lords, in complying with this ruling, effectively set aside the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, marking a significant departure from traditional notions of parliamentary supremacy. Legal scholars have argued that this decision underscored the incompatibility between EU membership and the UK’s constitutional framework, fuelling eurosceptic arguments that national control was being undermined (Craig, 1991).
Furthermore, the UK’s reluctance to fully accept the Doctrine of Supremacy was evident in its response to the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporated EU law into domestic law. While the Act provided a legal basis for EU law’s applicability, it was framed by some as a temporary delegation of power rather than a permanent surrender of sovereignty. Tensions persisted as subsequent CJEU rulings, such as in Van Gend en Loos (Case 26/62, 1963), reinforced the direct effect of EU law, granting individuals rights enforceable in national courts irrespective of domestic resistance. These developments were often portrayed in political discourse as judicial overreach, exacerbating public and parliamentary discontent (Miller, 2017).
Broader Implications of Supremacy Disputes
The legal battles over supremacy were not merely technical but symbolic of deeper ideological rifts. Eurosceptic politicians and media outlets frequently cited CJEU rulings as evidence of a democratic deficit, arguing that unelected judges in Luxembourg wielded disproportionate influence over British law-making (Daddow, 2013). This narrative resonated with a significant portion of the electorate during the Brexit campaign, where regaining legislative autonomy became a central promise of the Leave camp. Moreover, the perceived imposition of EU law highlighted the broader cultural and political disconnect between the UK and the EU’s integrationist ambitions, further alienating those who valued national identity over supranational unity.
It should be noted, however, that not all perspectives viewed supremacy as inherently negative. Pro-EU advocates argued that harmonised laws facilitated economic cooperation and protected rights, such as those under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Nevertheless, the consistent legal and political friction over supremacy undeniably contributed to the erosion of trust in EU membership, playing a pivotal role in the Brexit outcome.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between the UK and the EU was fraught with challenges stemming from divergent views on sovereignty, economic contributions, and immigration, ultimately leading to Brexit in 2016. Central to these tensions was the Doctrine of Supremacy, which pitted EU law against the UK’s constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. CJEU cases such as Costa v ENEL and Factortame exemplified this conflict, highlighting the practical and symbolic challenges of EU membership for the UK. While economic and social factors also drove the Leave vote, the legal disputes over supremacy crystallised broader anxieties about national autonomy. The implications of Brexit continue to unfold, raising questions about the future balance of sovereignty and international cooperation for the UK. This critical intersection of law and politics underscores the importance of understanding historical tensions to navigate post-Brexit relations effectively.
References
- Craig, P. (1991) Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament after Factortame. Yearbook of European Law, 11(1), pp. 221-255.
- Daddow, O. (2013) The UK Media and ‘Europe’: From Permissive Consensus to Destructive Dissent. International Affairs, 89(5), pp. 1219-1236.
- Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Macmillan.
- Electoral Commission (2016) Results and Turnout at the 2016 EU Referendum. Electoral Commission.
- George, S. (1998) An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community. 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.
- HM Treasury (2016) HM Treasury Analysis: The Long-Term Economic Impact of EU Membership and the Alternatives. UK Government.
- Miller, V. (2017) Brexit: Impact Across Policy Areas. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 07213.
