Answer: A constitution is a set of rules which regulates or governs the behavior of those people who are

forming part of the state. The notion of having a constitution got importance in the early 1600s which led
to the concept of constitutionalism. This requires that the state should have a codified constitution which
aims towards limitation of powers, separation of powers, accountability of government and protection of
human rights. However, the United Kingdom (UK) constitution is unlike other democratic nations as the
UK constitution, also known as “The British Constitution”, has an uncodified constitution which means
that there is no single document present that holds the information about the constitution of UK instead,
the constitution is located in various sources and has the element of both monarchial as well as republican
constitution. Initially, the powers of taking decisions and making laws in the UK belonged to the crown
who governed the state. However, there were many reforms which took place in order to ensure that these
powers of the crown become consistent with the modern constitutional system. The first reform took
place in 1215 when the Magna Carta was issued, which highlighted the fact that the King’s power was
limited. Although the parliament of UK took birth naturally, some early reforms gave powers to the
parliament I.e Petition of rights (1628) under which it was highlighted that the king’s power to impose
and raise taxes was limited. This power was given to the parliament. In accordance with the fact that due
to early reforms, the parliament started gaining powers to decide important aspects of UK, parliamentary
sovereignty was established because of political events in the 17th century and when The Bill of Rights
1689 was passed. In the Bill of Rights 1689 the foundation was laid to ensure parliament’s supremacy
over the Crown and to restrict the exercise of monarchical prerogative power. It established that the King
was bound by parliament. From this time, the parliament became formal entity with supreme power. This
concept was popularized by A.V Dicey in 1818.
The classical/ Diceyan Parliamentary Supremacy consisted of 3 points; 1. The unlimited legislative
competence of Parliament, 2. No other body may question the parliament's enactments, 3. No parliament
may bound a future Parliament or be bound by a previous parliament. Considering the unlimited
competence of Parliament, it emphasizes on the fact that parliament has supreme law-making powers and
has the right to make or unmake any law meaning that there is no legal limit on the subject matter on
which Parliament may legislate. Moving on to the second point of dicey which is no other body may
question the parliament's enactments, by this it was meant that historically, the courts were allowed to
challenge the validity of parliament’s enactment and can set them aside. However, Dicey’s view later
prevailed which fell under the enrolled bill rule in which courts cannot look behind Acts of parliament
and rather, they will follow the Act passed by the Parliament regardless of whether proper parliamentary
procedure was followed. Thirdly, the last point of Dicey stated that the one thing which the Parliament
cannot do is bind future Parliaments. To preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, its freedom to legislate
must not be limited by any successor or predecessor.
There are also many conventions regarding the Parliamentary supremacy such as the convention of IMR
and CMR which requires the minister to answer the questions raised in the parliament. Additionally, in
recent years, a convention has developed that the government will take prior permission from the
parliament before exercising certain Royal Prerogatives for e.g., signing a foreign treaty, deployment of
armed forces. Moreover, the Constitution Reform and Governance Act 2010 codifies the convention
requiring parliamentary approval for signing the foreign treaty which later became a law. Furthermore,
Fixed Term Parliamentary Act 2011 abolished the powers of prime minister to dissolve the parliament
and it will only be dissolved after fixed tenure of 5 years. In accordance with the fact that the Parliament
was given supremacy, the case of Cheny Vs Corn also highlights the Parliamentary supremacy where the
court refused to challenge the act of Parliament on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the Geneva
convention.
However, parliamentary supremacy faced a decline after entering in EU. The EU is a supernation
organization which is superior from its member states. The UK joined the EU in 1972. As UK was a
Dualist state so the treaties did not enter automatically in domestic law. In order for the Treaties to take
effect in the UK they had to be brought into domestic law. This was achieved by the enactment of the
ECA 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 incorporated the EU Treaty into UK law and gave
effect to the implication of membership of the European Community upon Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Section 2 of the ECA 1972 provides that European Community (now European Union) law shall have
direct applicability in the United Kingdom. The EU law supremacy was made clear in 1960s when the
European Court of Justice through its jurisprudence made clear the supremacy of EU law. The supremacy
of EU law was seen in the following cases;
1. In the case of Van Gend en loos 1963, the court held that member states limited their sovereign
rights by joining EU.
2. The EU law supremacy was reaffirmed in Costa v ENEL the following year. Where the ECJ held
that member state cannot pass a law which is inconsistent with the EU law.
3. A few years later, in case of Simmenthal the court of Justice held that any court irrespective of its
position in the national judicial hierarchy can set aside the conflicting domestic legislation.
From the above-mentioned cases, it was evident that the Parliamentary Supremacy was being declined
this means that through membership of the EU the Parliament was no longer the only body with the
ability to make law for the UK. In 1972, the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted to incorporate
the EU law within the UK domestic law. However, the ECJ did not specify that supremacy of the union
law hence the UK courts did not have clarity regarding a situation where both laws conflicted with each
other. The courts adopted 3 approaches to resolve the conflict between EU and UK law;
1. National law overwrites union law. Felix Stowe Lord Denning held that act of parliament will
prevail over the EU law (one of case)
2. Harmonious interpretation approach, the courts would interpret the conflicting domestic
legislation in such a way that it gets the same meaning as the union law (Macarthy`s VS Smith).
Lord denning stated that courts will presume that parliament when enacting a legislation must
have intended to comply with union obligations. Secondly the courts will consider the EU law as
an overriding force not simply a tool of interpretation (Garland VS British railways). In the case
of Pickstone VS freeman the court held that the judges are allowed to fill in the legislative gaps in
the acts of parliament in order to make it consistent with EU law. This amounts in naked
usurpation of legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.
3. Disapplication approach in which the domestic law, (Merchant shipping Act) was clearly in
violation of the EU law. The conflict was that no level of interpretation could harmoniously
resolve the conflict. The courts on the advice of CJEU disapplied the act of parliament and
followed the union law. This case shows that Parliamentary supremacy is now limited. In the
equal opportunities of commission case, the courts disapplied the conflicting domestic application
even without going to ECJ for advice. This application approach reflects a severe blow to the
concept of Parliamentary supremacy and the courts are now giving primacy to the EU law rather
than Act of Parliament.
On 23 June 2016, the UK held a referendum on its membership of the EU. The question facing voters was
“should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the EU?’ 51.89% of
voters voted to leave the EU. A majority of the electorate in England and Wales voted to leave whereas a
majority in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. However, in January 2020, the UK left EU.