The United Kingdom and the European Union - Essay Example

The commencement to the United Kingdom (U.K.), a member of the European Union (E.U.), was hallmarked on 23rd June 2016. In this respect, U.K. cast a vote to stop its E.U. membership by 51.90% margin, whereas those who cast a vote to remain in the membership were 48.10% margin. This phenomenon resulted in the main division, especially in the U.K. unionship. The decision to leave was won by the majority votes, which were from England as well as Wales. The votes cast to insist that the U.K. should remain to be an E.U. member were from Northern Ireland as well as Scotland.

Brexit significantly comprised the U.K. and E.U. relationship and the relationship that was existing between the four United Kingdom nations. Since the U.K. government is still sovereign, the Brexit settlement's imposition without the devolved government consent is still legally possible. Nevertheless, this approach contravened the conventions and devolution endeavors that are cognizant of the authority of the devolved government to establish their autonomous government (Miller & Paun, 2016). The strategy that invoked article-50 by the U.K. government brought forth a spirit of betrayal, especially amongst the devolved nations. This betrayal is facilitated by the fact that there are changes to the government that may be implemented without the need for consent. The exiting of the E.U. had far-reaching repercussions. For instance, it meant that Sewell-Convention would not be functional any further. Se-well convention was tailored to function within E.U. membership. The convention would be dysfunctional and unfit for its role if it operated outside E.U. membership.

The enactment of the E.U. (withdrawal) bill sparked considerable disagreement between the devolved government and the national government in U.K. The controversy intensified due to avoidance of consultation regarding the bill prior to its publishing and introduction in the House of Commons. Through amendments, significant concerns by the devolved government that touched on the issue of the European Union were addressed. Regardless, the bill was enacted into law even without the consent of the devolved nations who regarded their legislative consent as crucial. Such a move brought about the question of the Sewel Convention whereby the critics argued that the U.K. parliament ought not to legislate in the devolved competence without consultation of the devolved legislature. Sewel convention is much involved in the legislation processes even though there have been no sound legislating procedures to authorize it. The evidence of this inquiry revealed significant vagueness and uncertainty about the operations and construal of the Sewel Convention's roles.

The membership context in E.U. was crucial, especially during the preparation of the devolution acts. A professor of law at Dundee University, Professor Page, demonstrated that it was because the devolved institutional powers were inappropriately used to act in a fashion that portrays the whole U.K. to overlook its obligations in its E.U. membership[1] (House of Commons, 2017). In a quest to obviate such an incidence, an amendment to the devolution acts was made to disregard the provisions that were not as per the construed European Union established laws and was out of the scope of devolved institutions' competence[2]. This demonstrates that if a devolved institution legislates over a fisheries issue that contradicts the European Union policy of common fisheries, such a decision would be quashed. This was the scope restriction that has always been the main reason for disagreement between the U.K. government and the devolved institution, especially during the enactment of the E.U. (withdrawal) bill. For this reason, the trust between the two authorities has insidiously been eroded as a result.

The U.K. devolution should be comprehended with respect to U.K. status as E.U. members in the light of the period when the devolution acts were enforced. Britain's intended exit raised crucial questions regarding its sovereignty as an E.U. member. According to Michael Russell, a Scottish government minister who was involved in Britain's negotiations of Scotland's place in E.U. averred that devolution was a constitutional provision that was significantly undermined by the U.K. government in E.U. (withdrawal) bill.

According to Professor Adam Tomkins, a constitution shadow cabinet secretary, there was a dire need for a proper understanding that the U.K. was a multi-government state and needed not to be perceived as a unitary state. Thus, it did not mean that the country would implement the 1972 constitution after the Brexit[3]. He further argued that the principle of consent[4] was well spelled out by the constitutional foundations, particularly of the Belfast Agreement and, more so, the1988 Northern Ireland act[5]. As such, the principle describes that Northern Ireland was a part of the U.K. as agreed upon by the Northern Ireland residents. Thus, the region's constitutional status could only be amended after the consent of the Northern Ireland residents through casting votes. Thus, the principle of consent constitutionally keeps Northern Ireland as a part of the U.K. [6].

The Brexit plans elicited mixed reactions and views regarding how the devolution settlement of the U.K. will function in the future. Since the inception of the reserved devolution power model has been operational even in Scotland. Furthermore, the power model has since then been implemented in Wales. The latter previously used the conferred power system model, although it was adjusted after the recommendation by the Wales Devolution Commission report[7]. Empowerment-and-Responsibility; legislative-powers-to-strengthen-Wales[8]. The Silk Commission conclusively commented in the report that, as stipulated by the conferred power model, matters that were not discussed during the period when the legislation was enforced, would be grappled with by the U.K. parliament. However, under the reserved power model jurisdiction, such powers would be conferred to the devolved institutions.[9]

The 22nd January 2020, the withdrawal agreement act was passed by the parliament. However, the Wales, Scottish and Northern Ireland national assembly did not consent to the bill. Such a situation was unprecedented. There has never been a previous incidence where the three devolved legislating arms refuted to offer their consent to a given legislation piece.

According to the Sewel convention, the U.K. parliament ought not to normally legislate on the devolved issues without being given consent by the concerned devolved legislating arms. Nevertheless, it was perceived that the Sewel Convention was just in place, although it had no legal force. On the other hand, parliamentary sovereignty implies that the parliament can proceed in its legislative processes regardless. This was done to ensure that the U.K. can exit E.U. on 31st January 2021. Such measures have put the stability of the country at stake. Additionally, the move has resulted in mistrust amongst the devolved nations that have never been experienced before in the U.K. legislating arm and the government. Thus, it has brought forth uncertainty regarding the power, and discretionary power of the U.K. government has over the devolved institutions and administrators.

Nicola Sturgeon, the S.N.P. leader, averred that casting a vote to exit E.U., which was contrary to Scotland's intentions, would be a considerable change that justified a second referendum. However, she also added that a second referendum would be upheld if there was clear evidence demonstrating that a majority of those from Scotland needed Independence. On the other hand, she also averred that the second referendum would be upheld only if she was convinced that winning was inevitable (Hazell & Renwick, 2018)

If Brexit continues, a border poll would be summoned by Sinn Féin to reunite Northern Ireland and republic. Theresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland secretary who supports Brexit, expresses her intention to refute such a call. Furthermore, there are immense concerns regarding the vote to leave the republic, which could destabilize both the North and the South. The E.U. membership and E.C.H.R. commitment were a crucial aspect in the Northern Ireland peace initiatives as encapsulated by the 1981 Belfast Agreement[10].

The primary concern is that there is a desire by the devolved nations to exit the U.K. if Brexit occurs. Brexit has dramatically destabilized the union of the U.K. as mistrust has significantly grown amongst the devolved nations that feel marginalized. For this reason, the U.K. government has illustrated that Sewell convention would only be valid if it works based on their best interests. If it is not as showcased during the Brexit phenomenon, it has no considerable validity, disregarding and leaving the devolved nations with no option to consent or refute any decisions that involves their government. Such will be the primary cause of the instability. Mistrust and lack of confidence especially with the devolved functions are the elements that have catalyzed the instability phenomenon.

'Diceyan' presumption of Sewel convention expresses that it has potential to transform into a different from the devolved one. In this case, the additional of the local withdrawal bills accentuated how far power as construed by the constitution is perceived as diffuse. Therefore, such tension will accurately define the constitution, and hence should be resolved (Anthony, 2018).

[1] oral evidence: Devolution and Exiting the E.U., HC 484, Q13

[2] [2] Example Scotland Act 1998, section 29(2)(d)

[3] oral evidence: Devolution and Exiting the E.U., HC 484, Q13 Q553

[4] Example Scotland Act 1998, section 29(2)(d)

[5] Northern Ireland Act 1998

[6] Ibid. Q666

[7] The Act of Wales 2014 - c.29

[8] Empowerment and Responsibility: Legislative Powers to Strengthen Wales, Commission on Devolution in Wales, March 2014, R1

[9] Ibid, 4.3.3

[10] orthern Ireland Act 1998