Could Developments in Parliamentary Sovereignty and Primacy Achieved a Mutual Acquiescence Such That Brexit Could Have Been Averted?

Abstract

The primary obstacle to acceptance by the UK of the primacy of EU law is the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It is not the aim of this paper to explore why such a conflict arises. Instead, this paper argues that the failure with the doctrine of primacy acquiescing with parliamentary sovereignty is in a lack of recognition that the two doctrines have evolved with the passage of time. This paper explores selected developments in national identity, fundamental rights and the economic frontiers of EU law. The issue is how such a conflict should have been reinterpreted in order to establish a mutual acquiescence between the two doctrines, paying particular attention to the external and internal pressures affecting primacy of EU law as well as the constitutional developments reshaping parliamentary sovereignty. The solution would have been to accept and apply the principle of mutual respect and communication, accepting that conflicts are inevitable, instead of dabbling in political euphemisms and nationalistic pride, which would have perhaps worked towards averting an ill-timed Brexit.