Notes · PoliticsUK · A-Levels

The UK and the European Union

The UK's forty-seven years of membership of the European Communities and Union, and its withdrawal after the 2016 referendum, profoundly shaped its politics, constitution and debates over sovereignty. This topic examines the aims and development of the EU, the UK's 'awkward partner' membership, the impact of membership on sovereignty and Parliament, the 2016 referendum and withdrawal, and the consequences of Brexit.

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

T·101010 / 18

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of the aims of the EU, the UK's membership and the impact of withdrawalAO2 · Analyse how membership and withdrawal affected sovereignty, Parliament and the constitutionAO3 · Evaluate the impact of the EU and of Brexit on UK politics and sovereignty, reaching a substantiated judgement

Operators:explain and analyseevaluateto what extentanalyse and evaluate this statementexamine

basic level

AS-Level expects the aims of the EU and the outline of the UK's membership and withdrawal.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of the impact of membership and Brexit on sovereignty, reaching a judgement.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

The UK and the European Union

The aims and development of the EU#

FoundationAQA 7152/1: The European Union and its impactDfE GCE Politics subject content

The four freedoms of the single market

Fig. 1The single market rests on the four freedoms - the free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

The European Union grew out of the effort to bind together the states of Western Europe after the Second World War, and understanding its aims is the basis for assessing its impact on the UK. It began with the European Coal and Steel Community and then the European Economic Community, created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, whose founding purposes were to prevent another European war by tying the former combatants together economically, to rebuild and integrate their economies, and to create a common market. The project was as much political as economic: economic integration was intended to make war between the member states unthinkable and to build an 'ever closer union' among the peoples of Europe - a phrase that captures the EU's integrationist ambition and the source of much British unease.

The central economic aim is the single (or common) market, built on the 'four freedoms': the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across the member states, without internal barriers. The single market aims to create one integrated economy in which businesses and citizens can trade, invest, work and move freely, boosting prosperity through competition and scale. Achieving it required not just the removal of tariffs but the harmonisation of rules and standards, and a system of EU law binding on member states - which is why the single market has such far-reaching implications for national sovereignty and regulation.

The EU developed and deepened through successive treaties, and a good answer can trace this integration. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) transformed the European Communities into the European Union, created the framework for the single currency (the euro), added new areas of cooperation (foreign policy, justice and home affairs), and introduced EU citizenship - a major deepening of integration. Later treaties (Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon) extended the EU's competences, reformed its institutions, and increased the use of qualified-majority voting (reducing national vetoes). The EU also widened, expanding from six founding members to include much of Central and Eastern Europe. This dual process of deepening (more integration) and widening (more members) is the story of the EU's development.

The EU's institutions embody its supranational character, which is central to the sovereignty debate. The main bodies are the European Commission (the executive, which proposes legislation and enforces the treaties), the Council of the European Union and the European Council (representing the member-state governments), the European Parliament (directly elected), and the European Court of Justice (which interprets and enforces EU law, whose rulings bind member states). What makes the EU distinctive - and controversial for a sovereignty-conscious country like the UK - is that it is supranational: member states pool some of their sovereignty, EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law, and decisions can be taken by majority, binding a state that voted against them. Understanding the EU's integrationist aims, the single market and its supranational institutions is the foundation for assessing why the UK's membership was so contested and why withdrawal so significant.

Worked example

Why the EU is supranational, not just an alliance

Explain what makes the EU a supranational body rather than an ordinary international alliance.

Pooled sovereignty
Member states transfer (pool) some of their sovereign powers to common EU institutions that can make binding decisions.
Supremacy of EU law
EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law, and the European Court of Justice can enforce it against member states.
Majority voting
Many decisions are taken by qualified-majority voting, so a state can be bound by a decision it voted against - unlike an alliance requiring unanimity.
The contrast
An ordinary alliance leaves each state fully sovereign and requires consent for every obligation; the EU's supranationalism constrains member states beyond their case-by-case consent.

Result: The EU is supranational because member states pool sovereignty, EU law overrides conflicting national law, and decisions can be taken by majority and bind dissenting states - a far deeper constraint on national sovereignty than an ordinary international alliance, and the root of British unease with membership.

Typical mistakes

Treating the EU as a purely economic free-trade area, missing its political, integrationist aim ('ever closer union').
Confusing the four freedoms or forgetting that EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three aims of the European Union. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The UK's membership and the 'awkward partner'#

StandardAQA 7152/1: The European Union and its impactDfE GCE Politics subject content

The UK and European integration

Fig. 2The UK joined late and reluctantly, secured opt-outs, and - after decades of division - became the first state to leave.

The UK's relationship with European integration was ambivalent from the start, and the phrase 'awkward partner' captures a recurring theme. The UK did not join the founding project in 1957, and only joined the European Communities in 1973, after earlier applications had been vetoed. Membership was contested domestically from the outset: the 1975 referendum, in which the UK voted to remain in the Communities, settled the question only temporarily, and European integration remained a persistent source of division within and between the parties for the next four decades. The UK entered the project later, and with more reluctance, than the founding members, and never fully shared the integrationist enthusiasm of some partners.

Throughout its membership the UK often positioned itself as a semi-detached, sceptical member, seeking the economic benefits of the single market while resisting deeper political integration. It secured a rebate on its budget contributions, and negotiated important opt-outs that set it apart: it did not adopt the single currency, the euro, keeping the pound; and it stayed outside the Schengen passport-free travel area, retaining control of its borders. The UK frequently argued for a looser, more free-trade-oriented EU and against moves towards political union, federalism and 'ever closer union'. This stance - enthusiastic about the market, wary of the political project - is what earned it the 'awkward partner' label.

The tensions had deep roots in British political culture and constitutional tradition, which a strong answer can explain. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty sat uneasily with the supremacy of EU law and the pooling of sovereignty in supranational institutions; a strong sense of national identity and of the UK's global and Commonwealth ties made continental integration less natural; and the UK's distinctive uncodified constitution and common-law tradition contrasted with the more codified, integrationist assumptions of the EU. These factors meant that membership was always in tension with important elements of the British constitutional and political tradition, and that Euroscepticism had a persistent constituency.

The domestic politics of Europe grew steadily more fraught, setting the scene for the 2016 referendum. Divisions over Europe ran through both major parties at various times and were a recurrent source of political instability; the rise of a Eurosceptic insurgent party (UKIP) drew votes and pressured the Conservatives; and concerns about the effects of free movement, EU regulation and the loss of sovereignty gained increasing political traction. The promise of an in-out referendum, and its holding in 2016, were the culmination of decades in which the UK's membership was never fully settled and Europe remained a live and divisive question. Understanding this long history of ambivalence explains why the UK, uniquely, chose to leave - the 'awkward partner' finally departing.

Worked example

Why the UK was a semi-detached member

Explain how the UK positioned itself as a semi-detached member of the EU.

Late, reluctant entry
The UK joined only in 1973, after the project was established, and never shared the founding members' integrationist enthusiasm.
Opt-outs
It kept the pound (staying out of the euro) and remained outside the Schengen area, retaining border control - marking it apart from the integrating core.
The rebate and market focus
It negotiated a budget rebate and consistently pressed for a looser, free-trade-focused EU while resisting political union.
Constitutional tension
Parliamentary sovereignty sat uneasily with EU-law supremacy, giving Euroscepticism a persistent constitutional grievance.

Result: The UK positioned itself as semi-detached by joining late and reluctantly, securing a rebate and opt-outs from the euro and Schengen, and pressing for a looser, market-focused EU while resisting political union - the 'awkward partner' stance rooted in its constitutional tradition of parliamentary sovereignty.

Typical mistakes

Thinking the UK was a founding member - it joined in 1973, decades after the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
Forgetting the UK's key opt-outs (the euro, Schengen) that made it a semi-detached member.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three reasons why the UK was often described as an 'awkward partner' in the EU. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The impact of EU membership on UK politics and sovereignty#

StandardAQA 7152/1: The European Union and its impactDfE GCE Politics subject content

How EU membership affected UK sovereignty

Fig. 3The 1972 Act pooled sovereignty and made EU law supreme (Factortame); membership was reversible, so sovereignty was pooled, not surrendered.

EU membership had a far-reaching impact on the UK's politics, constitution and sovereignty, and a strong answer distinguishes the different dimensions of that impact. The most constitutionally significant was on sovereignty. The European Communities Act 1972 gave EU law effect in the UK, and by joining the UK accepted the principle that, where EU law and UK law conflicted, EU law would prevail. This was dramatically confirmed in the Factortame litigation, in which the courts 'disapplied' an Act of Parliament that conflicted with EU law - the first time an Act had been set aside in this way, and a direct challenge to the traditional doctrine that no court can override an Act of Parliament. Membership therefore involved a real, if voluntary and reversible, limitation on parliamentary sovereignty.

The impact on the constitution went beyond sovereignty in the abstract. EU law became a source of the UK constitution, and large areas of policy - trade, competition, agriculture, fisheries, the environment, aspects of employment and consumer law - came to be shaped or determined at EU level, reducing the autonomous law-making role of Parliament in those fields. Parliament's role was affected in another way too: it had to implement EU obligations, and its scrutiny of EU legislation (much of which was negotiated by ministers in the Council and then binding) was widely regarded as weak, contributing to concerns about a 'democratic deficit' in EU decision-making that affected the UK.

Membership also shaped the UK's party politics and the wider political system. Europe became one of the most divisive issues in British politics, cutting across the parties and periodically causing serious internal splits, especially in the Conservative Party; it fuelled the rise of a Eurosceptic insurgent party; and it interacted with debates about immigration (through free movement) and national identity. The requirement to coordinate with EU partners also constrained the UK's freedom of action in areas from trade policy to state aid. In these ways membership reshaped not just the constitution but the everyday texture of British politics.

It is important, however, to keep the limitation on sovereignty in proportion, because this is where analysis earns marks. Defenders of membership argued that the sovereignty 'lost' was only pooled, not surrendered - shared with partners to gain influence and the benefits of the single market - and that it remained legally reversible, as Brexit was ultimately to prove. On this view the UK retained ultimate legal sovereignty throughout (it could always repeal the European Communities Act and leave), and what it exercised was a choice to pool sovereignty for mutual benefit. Critics argued that the practical erosion of Parliament's control over swathes of policy, and the supremacy of EU law confirmed by Factortame, represented a genuine and troubling loss of self-government. This disagreement - between 'pooled sovereignty' and 'lost sovereignty' - is the analytical heart of the topic and the key to the referendum debate.

Worked example

Pooled or lost? Interpreting Factortame

Explain what the Factortame case showed about sovereignty, and how it can be interpreted two ways.

What Factortame did
The courts disapplied an Act of Parliament that conflicted with EU law - the first time an Act was set aside, confirming the supremacy of EU law while the UK was a member.
The 'lost sovereignty' reading
This showed that EU law could override an Act of Parliament, a genuine breach of the traditional doctrine that no court can set aside a statute - a real loss of sovereignty.
The 'pooled sovereignty' reading
The supremacy applied only because Parliament had CHOSEN it through the 1972 Act, which it could repeal at any time - so sovereignty was pooled voluntarily, not surrendered.
The proof
Brexit resolved the debate in favour of the 'pooled' reading: repealing the 1972 Act restored full parliamentary sovereignty, showing it had never been permanently lost.

Result: Factortame showed EU law could override an Act of Parliament, which critics read as a loss of sovereignty and defenders as sovereignty voluntarily pooled through the 1972 Act - and Brexit, by restoring full sovereignty on repeal of that Act, vindicated the 'pooled, not surrendered' interpretation.

Typical mistakes

Overstating the loss of sovereignty as permanent and total - it was voluntary, reversible (as Brexit showed) and, on one view, pooled rather than surrendered.
Ignoring Factortame or the practical reduction in Parliament's control over EU-competence policy areas.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that EU membership significantly undermined the UK's sovereignty. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The 2016 referendum and withdrawal#

StandardAQA 7152/1: The European Union and its impactDfE GCE Politics subject content

The 2016 referendum: Leave versus Remain

Fig. 4The referendum pitted the constitutional case for control (Leave) against the economic case for continuity and pooled influence (Remain).

The 2016 referendum on EU membership was the culmination of decades of division, and understanding the arguments on each side is essential. The government held an in-out referendum in June 2016, in which the electorate voted, by a majority, to leave the European Union. The result was close and divided the country geographically and demographically - with notable differences between nations, regions, age groups and educational backgrounds - and its closeness and the sharpness of the divisions it exposed shaped the difficult politics of the years that followed. The referendum turned a long-running elite and party division over Europe into a decision of the whole electorate.

The arguments made for leaving centred on sovereignty, immigration, democracy and money. Leave campaigners argued that withdrawal would restore parliamentary sovereignty and 'take back control' of laws, borders and money from Brussels; that it would allow the UK to control immigration by ending free movement; that the EU was undemocratic and remote, and that decisions should be taken by an accountable UK Parliament; and that the UK could prosper by making its own trade deals and freeing itself from EU regulation. The sovereignty and immigration arguments were especially powerful, tapping the long-standing constitutional unease and concerns about the scale and effects of free movement.

The arguments made for remaining centred on the economy, security and influence. Remain campaigners argued that membership of the single market was vital to the UK's prosperity, that leaving would damage trade, investment and jobs, and that the economic risks of withdrawal were severe; that EU cooperation strengthened security and the UK's influence in the world; and that the sovereignty 'lost' was pooled for mutual benefit and worth the price. They warned that the alternatives to membership were worse and the process of leaving would be difficult and costly. The referendum thus pitted the economic case for continuity and the value of pooled influence against the constitutional and control case for independence.

The process of withdrawal that followed was long and contentious, and a strong answer notes its constitutional significance. Withdrawal required activating the EU's exit procedure, negotiating the terms of departure and the future relationship, and legislating domestically to end EU law's effect - above all through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which repealed the European Communities Act 1972 and converted existing EU law into 'retained EU law' to avoid a legal vacuum. The UK formally left the EU in 2020, followed by a transition period. The politics of these years - parliamentary deadlock, a hung Parliament, the tension between the referendum mandate and parliamentary sovereignty, and the courts' role in requiring parliamentary approval - illustrated in the sharpest way the interaction of direct and representative democracy, and set up the debate about the consequences of Brexit that the final section addresses.

Worked example

Balancing the referendum arguments

Set out the strongest arguments on each side of the 2016 referendum.

Leave: sovereignty
Withdrawal would 'take back control' of laws, borders and money, restoring parliamentary sovereignty from a supranational EU.
Leave: immigration and democracy
Ending free movement would allow control of immigration; decisions would return to an accountable UK Parliament rather than a remote Brussels.
Remain: the economy
Single-market membership underpins trade, investment and jobs; leaving carries severe economic risk and disruption.
Remain: influence and pooled sovereignty
EU cooperation strengthens security and the UK's global influence, and the sovereignty pooled is worth the mutual benefits.

Result: The referendum balanced Leave's constitutional case (restoring sovereignty, controlling borders, democratic accountability) against Remain's economic and strategic case (single-market prosperity, security, influence and the value of pooled sovereignty) - a genuine clash of constitutional control against economic continuity.

Typical mistakes

Presenting only one side's arguments - a strong answer gives both Leave and Remain their strongest case.
Muddling the referendum (2016) with formal withdrawal (2020), or omitting the repeal of the European Communities Act.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three arguments made for the UK leaving the European Union. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The consequences of Brexit and the sovereignty debate#

AdvancedAQA 7152/1: The European Union and its impactDfE GCE Politics subject content

Legal versus political sovereignty after Brexit

Fig. 5Brexit restored LEGAL parliamentary sovereignty, but political sovereignty is now shared with the electorate and constrained by interdependence.

The consequences of Brexit for UK politics and the constitution are wide-ranging, and the central evaluative question is what it did to sovereignty, so a strong answer returns to the legal/political distinction. Legally, Brexit restored parliamentary sovereignty in full: the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repealed the European Communities Act 1972, EU law ceased to be supreme, and Parliament recovered the unfettered power to make or unmake any law without an external constraint. The reversibility of membership - the fact that the UK could and did leave - is itself the proof that legal sovereignty had never been permanently surrendered, only pooled; on this reading Brexit vindicated the traditional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and 'took back control' of law-making.

The picture is more complicated when political sovereignty and the practical realities of withdrawal are considered, and this is where the best answers add nuance. First, leaving the EU did not free the UK from all external constraint: to trade with its largest market and to meet international obligations, the UK must still align with rules it no longer helps to make, so some 'lost' influence over rules that affect it is a real cost of formal sovereignty regained. Second, the referendum route by which Brexit was decided entrenched popular (referendum) sovereignty as a rival source of authority, so that on fundamental constitutional questions the electorate's direct verdict now carries near-binding political weight - a change to how sovereignty operates in practice. The gap between legal sovereignty (fully restored to Parliament) and political sovereignty (now shared with the electorate and constrained by the realities of interdependence) is therefore the analytical crux.

Brexit also had significant consequences for the wider constitution and the Union, which a full answer includes. It removed EU law as a source of the constitution and created a large body of 'retained EU law' whose status Parliament must determine. It sharpened the tensions within the Union, since the nations voted differently and the arrangements for the Irish border and for devolved competences (many powers returning from Brussels touched devolved areas) became deeply contentious, feeding debates about Scottish independence and the Northern Ireland settlement. It also tested the relationship between the referendum mandate, parliamentary sovereignty and the courts, illustrating the unresolved tensions between direct and representative democracy in the UK's constitution.

Reaching a judgement means weighing the restoration of legal sovereignty against the practical and political qualifications, and being honest that some consequences are still unfolding. A defensible conclusion is that Brexit unambiguously restored parliamentary sovereignty in the legal sense - the decisive constitutional fact - while leaving the UK still subject to the practical constraints of economic interdependence and, at the political level, more bound than before by the direct verdict of the electorate; and that its consequences for the Union, for the balance between direct and representative democracy, and for the UK's place in the world remain significant and partly unresolved. The strongest answers argue a clear line - typically that Brexit restored formal sovereignty but that 'taking back control' was more qualified in practice than the slogan implied, because sovereignty is exercised in a world of interdependence and is now shared, politically, with a people who expect to decide the fundamentals directly. This nuanced, distinction-driven judgement is what distinguishes a top-band answer.

Worked example

Model essay plan: did Brexit restore sovereignty?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether Brexit restored the UK's sovereignty.

Introduction and thesis
Distinguish legal from political sovereignty; signal a judgement - Brexit restored legal sovereignty but 'control' is qualified in practice.
The restoration case
The 1972 Act was repealed, EU-law supremacy ended, and Parliament recovered the unfettered power to make any law; the reversibility of membership proves sovereignty was only pooled.
The qualifications
The UK must still align with rules it no longer shapes to trade with its largest market; interdependence constrains formal sovereignty; the referendum route entrenched popular sovereignty as a rival authority.
Wider consequences
Retained EU law; strains on the Union (differential votes, the Irish border, returning devolved powers); the tension between the mandate, Parliament and the courts.
Judgement
Conclude that Brexit unambiguously restored LEGAL parliamentary sovereignty but that 'taking back control' was more qualified in practice - sovereignty is exercised amid interdependence and is now shared politically with the electorate.

Result: A top-band plan distinguishes the legal restoration of sovereignty (repeal of the 1972 Act) from its practical and political qualifications (interdependence, entrenched referendum sovereignty, Union strains), and judges that Brexit restored formal sovereignty while making 'control' more qualified in practice than the slogan implied - a nuanced, distinction-driven conclusion.

Typical mistakes

Claiming Brexit simply 'restored sovereignty' with no qualification, ignoring the constraints of interdependence and the rise of referendum sovereignty.
Omitting the consequences for the Union (differential votes, the Irish border, returning devolved powers).

Active revision

'Brexit restored the UK's sovereignty.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for politics

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification

The UK and the European Union

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

The UK and the European Union

Key points

Why the EU is supranational, not just an alliance

Key points

Why the UK was a semi-detached member

Key points

Pooled or lost? Interpreting Factortame

Key points

Balancing the referendum arguments

Key points

Model essay plan: did Brexit restore sovereignty?

Sources

The UK and the European Union

Key points

Why the EU is supranational, not just an alliance

Key points

Why the UK was a semi-detached member

Key points

Pooled or lost? Interpreting Factortame

Key points

Balancing the referendum arguments

Key points

Model essay plan: did Brexit restore sovereignty?

Sources