Where Sovereignty Lies in the UK

Sovereignty is ultimate authority — the power to decide, with no higher power able to overrule you. Section 4.4 asks where that authority sits in the UK, and the answer is impossible to give without splitting the concept in two.

	Legal sovereignty	Political sovereignty
What it is	The formal right to make and unmake law	The practical capacity to make a decision stick
Where it sits in the UK	The Crown-in-Parliament	Contested — the executive, the electorate, the governing party
How you test it	Ask what Parliament may lawfully enact	Ask who in practice determines the outcome
Can it be lost gradually?	No — it moves only when Parliament legislates	Yes — it drifts with convention, expectation and circumstance

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was set out by A. V. Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution in 1885, and his three limbs are still the examinable formulation:

1. Parliament may make or unmake any law whatsoever.
2. No person or body may set aside an Act of Parliament.
3. No Parliament may bind a successor, and none is bound by a predecessor.

The 2016 EU referendum is the sharpest illustration of the gap. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 made the vote advisory: legally, Parliament was free to disregard it. Politically, no government or Parliament found that possible. Legal sovereignty said one thing and political sovereignty said another, and political sovereignty won.

Two further terms complete the vocabulary. Popular sovereignty locates ultimate authority in the people rather than in institutions. Pooled sovereignty describes states agreeing to exercise powers jointly, as EU members did — a sharing of political sovereignty, which is why the UK's legal sovereignty could be reclaimed by a single Act.

The strongest evidence that legal sovereignty has not moved is the record of Parliament using it against constraints that looked immovable. Four worked examples, in ascending order of significance.

1. Overriding a court on a point of law. In January 2010 the Supreme Court quashed a terrorist asset-freezing order in HM Treasury v Ahmed because it went beyond the powers Parliament had granted. Parliament passed the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010 within weeks, restoring the freezes on a proper statutory footing.

2. Overriding a court on a finding of fact. In November 2023 the Supreme Court held unanimously that removing asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 required decision-makers to treat Rwanda as safe. Whatever one thinks of the policy, the constitutional demonstration is total: Parliament legislated a judicial finding out of legal existence.

3. Undoing a predecessor's constitutional reform. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 removed the Prime Minister's power to choose an election date. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed it and revived the prerogative. Dicey's third limb — that no Parliament binds a successor — worked exactly as stated.

4. Reclaiming powers from a supranational body. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repealed the statute that had given EU law effect in the UK, and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 ended the supremacy of the EU-derived rules that remained. A membership that many had described as an irreversible loss of sovereignty was reversed by ordinary legislation.

Add two structural points. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 let the Commons pass legislation without the Lords' agreement. And devolution rests on statute: using powers Parliament had granted in the Northern Ireland Act 2000, the Secretary of State suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly in October 2002, and devolved government was not restored until May 2007.

Every one of these examples supports the same conclusion. Legal sovereignty has not migrated anywhere. If you are asked whether sovereignty has moved, this is the half of the answer that says no.

Political sovereignty is harder to pin down because it is a description of behaviour rather than of law. Four claimants compete for it, and a good answer weighs all four.

The electorate. Voters choose the House of Commons, and with it the government. In July 2024 an electorate of 48,224,212 delivered Labour a majority of 174. That is the sharpest exercise of political sovereignty in the system — and its limits are equally clear. Turnout was 59.7%, the majority rested on 33.7% of the vote, and voters could not choose between individual manifesto items.

The executive. Between elections the government sets the legislative programme, controls the Commons timetable, makes roughly 3,000 statutory instruments a year and exercises the prerogative. For most of a Parliament, the practical power to decide sits in Downing Street and the departments.

The governing party. This claimant is easy to overlook and, in the current Parliament, has been decisive. Sir Keir Starmer announced his resignation on 22 June 2026 after Labour lost around 35 councils and nearly 1,500 councillors at the May 2026 local elections, around 103 Labour MPs called for him to go, and several Cabinet ministers resigned. Andy Burnham became Prime Minister on 20 July 2026, having entered the Commons at the Makerfield by-election on 18 June 2026 and been elected Labour leader unopposed on 17 July 2026. A change of head of government took place with no general election and no Commons defeat.

The people directly. Since 1975 the expectation has grown that major constitutional questions go to a referendum. The record includes the 1975 EEC vote, the 1997 devolution referendums, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum, the 2011 vote on the Alternative Vote (67.9% against, on 42.2% turnout), the 2014 Scottish independence referendum (55.3% against independence on 84.6% turnout) and the 2016 EU referendum.

The 2026 change of Prime Minister is a gift to this topic. It demonstrates that the UK elects a Parliament rather than a Prime Minister, that political sovereignty passes through the governing party as well as the electorate, and that the royal prerogative to appoint a PM follows the Commons arithmetic rather than a popular vote.

Devolution transferred decision-making to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast from 1999 onwards. The specification's own terminology is precise: devolution disperses power, not sovereignty.

Why that formulation is legally correct. Each devolved body was created by an Act of the UK Parliament, and what one Act creates another can amend. Westminster retains reserved powers over defence, foreign affairs, the constitution and macroeconomic policy, and it demonstrated the point by suspending the Northern Ireland Assembly between 2002 and 2007.

Why the formulation understates reality. Three developments have entrenched devolution politically even though it stays legally reversible:

1. Statutory permanence. The Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017 declare the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and their governments permanent parts of the UK's constitutional arrangements, not to be abolished except after a referendum in the nation concerned. A future Parliament could repeal those sections, but the political cost has been made prohibitive.
2. The Sewel Convention. Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent. The Scotland Act 2016 put this in statute — and in Miller (2017) the Supreme Court held unanimously that it remains a political convention the courts cannot enforce. It constrains political sovereignty while leaving legal sovereignty untouched.
3. Institutional divergence. The devolved bodies have become substantial governments in their own right. At the Senedd election of 7 May 2026 the institution expanded from 60 to 96 members, elected from sixteen six-member constituencies by closed proportional list, on a turnout of 51.6% — the highest at any Senedd election. Plaid Cymru took 43 seats and Labour fell to 9, ending Labour participation in Welsh government for the first time since 1999.

Referendums as a second downward channel. A referendum transfers a decision from Parliament to the electorate for one question. It is legally advisory, which preserves parliamentary sovereignty on paper, and politically binding, which removes it in practice. Parliament retains control of whether to call one — which is why no second Scottish independence referendum has followed the 2014 vote.

The specification asks about movement between different branches of government. Two flows matter, and they run in opposite directions from Parliament.

Legislature to executive

• Delegated legislation. Around 3,000 statutory instruments a year are made by ministers under powers Parliament granted. Most receive no debate, and the Commons has not voted one down since 1979. "Henry VIII" clauses go further, allowing ministers to amend primary legislation by order. The powers to amend assimilated EU law under the Retained EU Law Act 2023 are a recent large example.
• The prerogative. Appointments, treaty-making and the deployment of the armed forces rest with ministers rather than with Parliament. The 2022 repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act returned the timing of elections to the same category.
• Party discipline. A cohesive Commons majority converts formal parliamentary authority into effective executive authority. Lord Hailsham's 1976 charge of elective dictatorship describes precisely this transfer.

Legislature and executive to the judiciary

• The Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights where possible, and lets them declare an Act incompatible where it is not. The declaration changes nothing in law, which is why the HRA is described as preserving sovereignty — but in practice most declarations that survived appeal have been answered by amending the law.
• Judicial review has grown from a specialised remedy into a routine constraint. In R (Miller) v The Prime Minister on 24 September 2019 the Supreme Court held unanimously that a five-week prorogation was unlawful and void, placing a legal limit on a prerogative power previously treated as unreviewable.
• The Supreme Court also settles the boundaries of devolved competence, giving it a standing role in the constitutional structure.

Note the ceiling on this second flow. The courts have taken political sovereignty from the executive; they have taken almost none from Parliament, because they cannot strike down an Act. The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 marks the boundary precisely.

One external constraint worth naming. The UK remains a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which belongs to the Council of Europe and is separate from the EU. Membership constrains political sovereignty; it leaves legal sovereignty intact, because Parliament could legislate to leave.

Withdrawal is the clearest recent movement of sovereignty, and it did not move in only one direction.

What returned. EU law no longer takes precedence over Acts of Parliament. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 ended the supremacy of the EU-derived rules kept after exit and renamed them assimilated law, which sits in the ordinary hierarchy and can be repealed by ordinary statute. Parliament regained formal freedom to legislate on trade, tariffs, agriculture, fisheries and immigration.

Where it went. Much of the returning authority reached ministers rather than MPs. The withdrawal legislation and the 2023 Act carry wide delegated powers to revoke and reform assimilated law by statutory instrument, so a decision that used to be taken in Brussels is now frequently taken in a department rather than on the floor of the Commons.

What it created inside the UK. Powers returning in agriculture, fisheries and environmental standards landed in devolved competence. Westminster passed the UK Internal Market Act 2020 to require each nation to recognise the others' standards. The Scottish Parliament and the Senedd both withheld legislative consent and Westminster legislated anyway — lawful, because Miller had confirmed that the Sewel Convention cannot be enforced by a court, and a direct illustration of legal sovereignty overriding a political constraint.

What continues. The trade agreement in force since May 2021 and the Windsor Framework agreed in February 2023 impose obligations the UK accepted by treaty. These bind political choices without touching Parliament's legal capacity to repudiate them.

Set the movements out chronologically before you judge them. The pattern is not a one-way drain of sovereignty away from Westminster; it is an oscillation.

Four answers are defensible, and each needs the qualification attached to it.

Answer	The case for it	The qualification
Parliament	Legal sovereignty is intact and repeatedly demonstrated: 2018, 2022, 2023, 2024	Parliament is controlled by the executive for most of a Parliament, so the legal holder is rarely the effective decider
The executive	Controls the timetable, the prerogative and 3,000 statutory instruments a year	Its authority evaporates without a majority, as in 2017–19, and its leader can be removed by the party, as in June 2026
The people	Elections change governments; referendums have settled EU membership, devolution and electoral reform	Referendums happen when the government calls them, and no general election since 1997 has drawn a turnout above 70%
Dispersed	Devolution, the courts, the Lords and treaty obligations all constrain Westminster	Each constraint is either statutory, and repealable, or conventional, and unenforceable

A judgement worth writing. Legal sovereignty has not moved: it remains with the Crown-in-Parliament, and the Acts of 2018, 2022, 2023 and 2024 prove it can be exercised against courts, predecessors and supranational bodies alike. Political sovereignty has moved a great deal, and it now circulates — resting with the electorate at a general election, with the executive between elections, and with the governing party at the moments when a Prime Minister's position collapses, as it did in June 2026. The UK's constitution has become more constrained without becoming less sovereign, and that apparent contradiction is exactly what the legal/political distinction exists to explain.

1. Using the word "sovereignty" without saying which kind

Section 4.4 is built on the distinction, so the word cannot stand alone. "Sovereignty has moved to the executive" is confused; "political sovereignty has moved to the executive while legal sovereignty remains with Parliament" is the answer. Signal the distinction in your opening paragraph and hold it throughout.

2. Claiming devolution transferred sovereignty

The specification's own definition of devolution is a dispersal of power rather than of sovereignty. The accurate line is that devolution transferred substantial political sovereignty while leaving legal sovereignty at Westminster, and that the 2016 and 2017 Acts entrenched it politically rather than legally.

3. Treating EU membership as an irreversible loss

Withdrawal by ordinary Act of Parliament is the proof that legal sovereignty survived membership. Membership pooled political sovereignty; it did not transfer the legal kind.

4. Saying the courts have taken sovereignty from Parliament

They have taken political sovereignty from the executive, in Miller 2 and in judicial review generally. They have almost none over Parliament, because a declaration of incompatibility leaves an Act in force and the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 shows Parliament legislating past a ruling.

5. Confusing the EU with the European Convention on Human Rights

Separate bodies, separate courts. The UK left the EU in January 2020 and remains a party to the Convention. Check which one you mean every time you write about rights or sovereignty.

6. Answering only about institutions

Section 4.4 asks where sovereignty can now be said to lie, which is a question about practice as well as structure. The 2026 change of Prime Minister, the 2016 referendum and the withholding of devolved consent to the UK Internal Market Act are the kind of evidence that answers it.

7. Setting out four possible locations and choosing none

Evaluate carries 10 of its 30 marks for AO3. List the candidates by all means, then commit: say where legal sovereignty lies, say where political sovereignty lies, and explain what your answer depends on.