¹ Law of the Constitution (8th ed., 1915), p. lxxiv.Google Scholar

² See, e.g., Local Government in England: Government Proposals for Reorganisation, Cmnd. 4584 (February 1971).

³ Law of the Constitution, xc.

⁴ de Smith, S. A., The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions (1964), p. 254.Google Scholar See Dicey at pp. lxxxvii–lxxxviii.

⁵ See “Rough Passage to a United Ireland” (Ryan, A. P.), The Times, 13 August 1971, p. 10Google Scholar; “Time for a United Ireland” (Whale, John), Sunday Times, 30 May 1971, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁶ See “How I would solve the Irish Problem” (Quintin Hogg), Sunday Express, 24 August 1969, p. 14Google Scholar; The Listener (Quintin Hogg), 18 September 1969, pp. 363–364.Google Scholar

⁷ See esp. the views of Mr. Harold Wilson in H.C. Vol. 826, col. 1571 et seq. (25 November 1971). See also the views of Mr. William Craig in The Times, report, 27 October 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁸ Calvert, Harry, Constitutional Law in Northern Ireland (1968), p. 33.Google Scholar

⁹ Written Evidence 3 (Commission on the Constitution), p. 1. See Keeton, G. W., “United or Disunited Kingdom” (1969)Google Scholar C.L.P. 29.

¹⁰ [1960] A.C. 490, 518, H.L.

¹¹ Calvert, Harry, “Northern Ireland—What Went Wrong?”Google Scholar in Welsh Studies in Public Law (ed. Andrews, J. A., 1970), p. 92.Google Scholar See A Record of Constructive Change (White Paper, Belfast, Cmd. 558 of 1971);Google ScholarThe Future Development of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland (Consultative Document, Cmd. 560 of 1971).Google Scholar

¹² See, e.g., Donaldson, “The Constitution of Northern Ireland” (1955) 11 Univ. of Toronto L.J. 1, 29; Mackintosh, J. P., The Devolution of Power (1968), 177Google Scholaret seq.

¹³ See Calvert in Chap. 4 of Constitutional Law in Northern Ireland, and Chap. 6 of Welsh Studies in Public Law. In Modern Federalism (1969) Geoffrey Sawer says (at p. 57) that the Government of Ireland Act created “an odd sort of federal situation.”

¹⁴ See Wheare, K. C., What Federal Government Is (1941), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Disturbances in Northern Ireland, Cmd. 532 (Belfast, September 1969), para. 126.

¹⁶ Report of the Advisory Committee on Police in Northern Ireland, Cmd. 535 (Belfast, October 1969), para. 21.

¹⁷ See Rose, Richard, “Ulster: the problem of Direct Rule,”Google ScholarNew Society, 10 June 1971, pp. 998–999.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Brett, C. E., “Regional parliaments: the lessons of Stormont,”Google ScholarThe Times, 1 April 1970, p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Written Evidence 3, p. 1 (Home Office evidence).

²⁰ Minutes of Evidence III, Memorandum of the Ulster Unionist Council, p. 45. See also, The United Kingdom. The Development of its Law and Constitutions (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man), Chap. 19 (by L. A. Sheridan), p. 431.

²¹ See generally, Mitchell, J. D. B., Constitutional Law (2nd ed., 1968).Google Scholar

²² See, e.g., Smith, T. B., “The Union of 1707 as Fundamental Law” [1957]Google ScholarPublic Law 99.

²³ 1953 S.C. 396.

²⁴ Dicey and Rait, Thoughts on the Union between England and Scotland (1920), p. 22.

²⁵ MacCormick v. Lord Advocate 1953 S.C. 396, 411.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Keir and Lawson, Cases in Constitutional Law (5th ed., 1967), pp. 1–2.

²⁷ (1610) 8 Co.Rep. 114a. See further, n. 72 below.

²⁸ See Phillips, Hood, Constitutional and Administrative Law (4th ed., 1967), p. 66Google Scholar; Mitchell, Constitutional Law (2nd ed., 1968), p. 89.

²⁹ The Constitutional History of England (1908), p. 332.Google Scholar

³⁰ See The Times, 20 May 1968, p. 3Google Scholar; Daily Telegraph (leading article), 20 March 1970, p. 18Google Scholar; Mackintosh, J. P., The Devolution of Power (1968), pp. 169–170.Google Scholar

³¹ “A Better Tomorrow,” p. 24.

³² “Now Britian's strong let's make it great to live in,” p. 22.

³³ See Written Evidence 2—The Scottish Office, Lord Advocate's Department and the Crown Office (H.M.S.O. 1969); Minutes of Evidence II (H.M.S.O. 1970). Annex I of Written Evidence 2 at 47–49 provides a useful historical survey.

³⁴ See Reform of Local Government in Scotland, Cmnd. 4583 (February 1971Google Scholar ).

³⁵ See Mackintosh, The Devolution of Power (1968, esp. Chap. 9; Banks, J. C., Federal Britian? The Case for Regionalism (1971)Google Scholar. For a different approach to problems of devolution, see Mitchell, J. D. B. in Chap. 5 (“Government and Public Law in Scotland”)Google Scholar of Welsh Studies in Public Law (1970)Google Scholar. It might be noted in passing that the area of Scotland will be extended by the Island of Rockall Bill 1971—see H.C., Vol. 828, col. 189 et seq. (13 December 1971); H.L., Vol. 325, col. 750 et seq. (18 November 1971).

³⁶ See D. G. T. Williams in Chap. 8 (“The Control of Local Authorities”) of Welsh Studies in Public Law at 117–118.

³⁷ Cmnd. 1562, para. 279.

³⁸ Para. 707.

³⁹ H.C., Vol. 675, col. 314 (2 April 1963).

⁴⁰ Cmnd. 4040 (June 1969), para. 13. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission did not include Greater London.

⁴¹ Reform of Local Government in England, Cmnd. 4276 (February 1970)Google Scholar, para. 12; Local Government in England, Cmnd. 4584 (February 1971Google Scholar ), paras. 35–37.

⁴² R. v. Cowle (1759) 2 Burr. 834; 97 E.R. 587 at 850, 596 (Lord Mansfield).

⁴³ Campbell v. Hall (1774) Lofft 655; 98 E.R. 848—argument of counsel at 689, 868. See also Lampley v. Thomas (1747) 1 Wils.K.B. 193; 95 E.R. 568.

⁴⁴ See (Prof.) Williams, David, A History of Modern Wales (1950), Chap. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed Act 1746. See Nicol v. Verelst, 2 Black.W. 1277; 96 E.R. 751 at 1287, 755 (Blackstone J.).

⁴⁶ See Commission on the Constitution, Written Evidence 1, p. 1.

⁴⁷ Williams, A History of Modern Wales, pp. 39–41.

⁴⁸ Rees, J. F., Studies in Welsh History (1947), pp. 40–41;Google Scholar Harold Carter in Chap. 3 (“Local Government and Administration in Wales 1536–1939”) of Welsh Studies in Public Law (1970).

⁴⁹ See Tanner, J. R., Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (1960), p. 26Google Scholar. See also, Rees, J. F., Studies in Welsh History, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See R. v. Lister, Sess.Cas. 190; 93 E.R. 192 at 190, 192.

⁵¹ See generally, Written Evidence 1 and 2 (Commission on the Constitution).

⁵² Gowan, Ivor, Government in Wales (pamphlet, inaugural lecture 1966), p. 5.Google Scholar See also Gowan in Chap. 4 ( “Government in Wales in the Twentieth Century”) in Welsh Studies in Public Law (1970).Google Scholar

⁵³ e.g., Report of Committee on the Legal Status of the Welsh Language, Cmnd. 2785 (October 1965); Primary Education in Wales (a report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (Wales)) (H.M.S.O.) (1967).

⁵⁴ See also, Evans v. Thomas [1962] 2 Q.B. 350Google Scholar, and R. v. Merthyr Tydfil JJ., ex p. Jenkins [1967] 2 Q.B. 21.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Local Government in Wales, Cmnd. 3340 (July 1967)Google Scholar; Local Government Reorganisation in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, Cmnd. 4310 (March 1970Google Scholar ). See Trice, J. E., “Welsh Local Government Reform: An Assessment of Ad Hoc Administrative Reform” [1970]Google ScholarPublic Law 277.

⁵⁶ The Reform of Local Government in Wales (H.M.S.O., February 1971Google Scholar ), para. 1.

⁵⁷ See the two volumes of The United Kingdom. The Development of its Laws and Constitutions (1955)Google Scholar: Chap. on the Channel Islands (L. A. Sheridan) and Chap. on the Isle of Man (D. C. Holland).

⁵⁸ Pipon v. Pipon (1744) 9 Mod. 431; 88 E.R. 554 at 436, 557.

⁵⁹ Simmonds, K. R., “The British Islands and the Community: 1. Jersey” (1968)Google Scholar 6 C.M.L.R. 156 at 156.

⁶⁰ Simmonds, K. R., “The British Islands and the Community: 2. The Isle of Man” (1970)Google Scholar 7 C.M.L.R. 454, 455. Professor Simmonds will be publishing a third article on Guernsey.

⁶¹ See L. A. Sheridan, op. cit., supra, at p. 114; D. C. Holland, op. cit., supra, at 486. See also the Attorney-General in Pipon v. Pipon at pp. 433, 555: “The laws of Jersey are separate, distinct, and independent of the laws of England, though not of the Legislature of England.”

⁶² See (Prof.) Wilson, Thomas, “Constitutional implications of home rule all round,”Google ScholarThe Times, 16 November 1967, p. 11Google Scholar; Mackintosh, J. P., “Nationalist Eyes on Ulster's system,”Google ScholarThe Times, 6 August 1968, p. 7Google Scholar; report in The Times, 28 September 1968, p. 1Google Scholar (speech by Mr. Enoch Powell).

⁶³ Livingstone, William S. (ed.), Federalism in the Commonwealth: A Bibliographical Commentary (1963), pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar. See Sawer, G., Australian Federalism in the Courts (1967), Chap. 1;Google ScholarWheare, K. C., Federal Government (4th ed., 1963)Google Scholar, Chap. 1; Dicey, England's Case Against Home Rule (3rd ed., 1887), pp. 160–161.

⁶⁴ Jennings, Ivor, A Federation for Western Europe (1940), p. 3Google Scholar. See Sawer, G., Modem Federalism (1969), Chap. 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ What Federal Government Is (pamphlet issued by Federal Union, 1941), pp. 9–10.

⁶⁶ See Law of the Constitution, Chap. 3.

⁶⁷ England's Case Against Home Rule (3rd ed., 1887), p. 168.

⁶⁸ See Report of the Advisory Commission o n the Review of the Constitution of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Cmnd. 1148 of I960, Chap. 12.

⁶⁹ See Lester, Anthony, Democracy and Individual Rights (Fabian Tract, 1969)Google Scholar; Smith, de, The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions (1964), Chap. 5Google Scholar; Pallister, Anne, Magna Carta: the Heritage of Liberty (1971), Chap. 7Google Scholar; Carson, John, “Towards a Rights Guarantee for Britain ” (1970Google Scholar ) XVI N.Y. Law Forum 605; Hogg, Quintin, New Charter: Some Proposals for Constitutional Reform (Conservative Political Centre, April 1969)Google Scholar; Kelly, J. M., Fundamental Rights in the Irish Law and Constitution (2nd ed., 1967)Google Scholar; The Times, 4 December 1970, p. 3Google Scholar (report of lecture by Salmon L.J.), also at p. 13 (leading article); The Times, 14 May 1970, p. 2Google Scholar, and 17 July 1969, p. 3 (reports of speeches by Lord Shawcross); article in The Listener, 24 April 1969, p. 549Google Scholar (Quintin Hogg); The Times, 25 June 1970, p. 9Google Scholar; Spectator, 10 January 1969, p. 33Google Scholar; 8 March 1968, p. 290; 29 March 1968, p. 399; 19 July 1969, p. 67.

⁷⁰ See Gilmour, D. R., “The Sovereignty of Parliament and the European Commission of Human Rights” [1968] Public Law 62, 72Google Scholar; Harris, D. J., “The European Convention on Human Rights and English Criminal Law” [1966] Crim.L.R. 205, 266Google Scholar (two-part article). See generally Fawcett, J. E. S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (1969).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Jackson, Robert H., The Supreme Court as a Political Institution (1955), Harper, Torchbook ed., 1963, pp. 81–82.Google Scholar

⁷² “And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void, for when an act of parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such act to be void ” ((1610) 8 Co.Rep. 118a).

⁷³ Corwin, The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law (originally in Harvard L.R., reprinted separately 1955), p. 57. See also Plucknett, “Bonham's Case and Judicial Review” (1926) 40 Harv.L.R. 30; Thome, “Dr. Bonham's Case ” (1938) 54 L.Q.R. 543; Berger, “Dr. Bonham's Case: Statutory Construction or Constitutional Theory ” (1969) 117 U. of Pa.L.R. 521.

⁷⁴ Gough, , Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (1955) p 32.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ (1637) 3 St.Tr. 825.

⁷⁶ [1965] A.C. 172.

⁷⁷ Gallagher v. Lynn [1937] A.C. 863, 870.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of N.S.W. [1950] A.C. 235, 310.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Rostow, “The Democratic Nature of Judicial Review” (1952) 66 Harv.L.R. 193.

⁸⁰ See “The Case for a Written Constitution,” Spectator, 8 March 1968, pp. 290–291Google Scholar (Anthony Lewis).

⁸¹ See Mason, A. T., “Extra-Judicial Work for Judges: the Views of Chief Justice Stone” (1953) 67Google Scholar Harv.L.R. 193.

⁸² Horwill, “The Referendum in Great Britain” (1911) 26 Pol.Sci.Qu. 415; Emden, Cecil S., The People and the Constitution (2nd ed., 1956), p. 297et seq.Google Scholar

⁸³ Earl of Birkenhead, “No Referendum!” in Last Essays (1930), Chap. 3.

⁸⁴ See Goodhart, Philip, Referendum (1971)Google Scholar. In the course of this book surveying the case for and against a referendum, the author says (at p. 189): “One of the few viable ways of ‘entrenching’ a Bill of Rights would be to submit the Bill to a referendum once it had been approved by both Houses of Parliament.” See Jay, Douglas, “Joining the Six—the case for a referendum,” The Times, 1 August 1970, p. 13Google Scholar; John-Stevas, St., “Historical Case against a Referendum on Europe,” The Times, 12 June 1971, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Dicey, Law of the Constitution (8th ed., 1915), pp. xci–c. Dicey explained that the word referendum “is a foreign expression derived from Switzerland,” the strongest argument against it is that it entails “the transfer of political power from knowledge to ignorance,” the strongest argument for it is that it might “keep in check the inordinate power now bestowed on the party machine.” See Emden, The People and the Constitution (2nd ed., 1956), pp. 297–302.

⁸⁶ See, e.g., Gazey, “Direct Democracy—A Study of the American Referendum ” (1970) xxiv Parl. Affairs 123; Harris, “The Rhodesian Referendum: June 20th 1969 ” (1969) Parl.Affairs 72.

⁸⁷ See H.C., Vol. 792, col. 199–200 (25 November 1969, Mr. Wilson); Vol. 820, col. 1514–1516 (8 July 1971, Mr. Heath). See also, Vol. 806, col. 835 (16 November 1970, Mr. Rippon).

⁸⁸ See Laski, Parliamentary Government in England (1938), p. 133; Marriott, English Political Institutions: an Introductory Study (4th ed., 1938), p. 228.

⁸⁹ The quotation is from a leading article in The Times, 1 August 1970, p. 13.Google Scholar See also, leading article in the Observer, 30 May 1971, p. 8.Google Scholar See generally on the Common Market arguments, correspondence in The Times for 27 May 1971, p. 17Google Scholar, and 3 June 1971, p. 15, and reports in The Times, 25 May 1971, p. 4Google Scholar (Mr. Wedgwood-Benn urges a referendum), 8 June 1971, p. 5 (Sir Alec Douglas-Home against a referendum), 15 July 1971, p. 6 (Mr. Heath against a referendum), 21 January 1971, p. 6 (Sir Derek Walker-Smith for a referendum).

⁹⁰ See Hughes, “Judicial Review in the United States,” Chap. 10 in Welsh Studies in Public Law (1970), p. 172.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Miller, J. D. B., Australian Government and Politics (3rd ed., 1964), p. 138.Google Scholar

⁹² Law of the Constitution (8th ed., 1915), p. 137.Google Scholar

⁹³ 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

⁹⁴ At 613. See Westin, The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case (1958), p. 147.

⁹⁵ 8th ed., pp. lxxiii-lxiv.

⁹⁶ Id., p. lxxx.

⁹⁷ Id., p. lxxxi-lxxxii. See generally, Amery, L. S., Thoughts on the Constitution (2nd ed., 1953), pp. 111et seq.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Agreed Memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat: Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting, 1965, Cmnd. 2713 of 1965, para. 4. See Smith, de, The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions (1964), Chap. 1.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Nearing the Abyss (1937, popular ed., 1937), p. 98. In The Seven Pillars of Peace (1945)Google Scholar he argued “that the existing international system of national sovereign states is sheer anarchy which sooner or later will end in war.” See also, Dalton, Hugh, Towards the Peace of Nations (1928), Chap. xiiGoogle Scholar; Davies, Lord, Facing the Future (1942).Google Scholar

¹ Federation and World Order (1940), by Duncan and Elizabeth Wilson.

² See, e.g., Brailsford, H. N., Property or Peace (1934), Chap. 5 (part 6)Google Scholar; Curry, W. B., The Case for Federal Union (1939)Google Scholar; Hoyland, John S., Federate or Perish (1944)Google Scholar; Streit, Clarence K., Union Now (A Proposal for a Federal Union of the Democracies of the North Atlantic) (1939)Google Scholar; Cherry, Jack, Once and For All (1941).Google Scholar See also, Federal Union: A Symposium (ed. M. Chaning-Pearce) (1940); Curtis, Lionel, The Open Road to Freedom (1950).Google Scholar

³ See, e.g., Salter, Sir Arthur, The United States of Europe (ed. W. Arnold-Forster) (1933).Google Scholar

⁴ A Federation for Western Europe (1940).

⁵ See Mitchell, J. D. B., Europe (The Politics of the Pig in the Middle) (pamphlet, 1970).Google Scholar

⁶ In this Chap. the singular “Community” will be used for the three communities.

⁷ The United Kingdom and the European Communities, Cmnd. 4715 (July 1971)Google Scholar, para. 13.

⁸ See esp. Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities, Cmnd. 3301 (May 1967), paras. 5–19.

⁹ Miriam Camps, What Kind of Europe? (The Community Since de Gaulle's Veto) (1965), p. 126.

¹⁰ Pinder, John and Pryce, Roy, Europe after de Gaulle (Towards a United States of Europe) (1969), p. 53.Google Scholar Mr. Heath used the term “pooling of sovereignty” in H.C., Vol. 796, col. 1223 (25 February 1970). See New Statesman, 15 January 1971 at pp. 72 and 73Google Scholar, for two views on a federal Europe (Peter Shore and Michael Barnes).

¹¹ See H.L., Vol. 323, col. 367 (27 July 1971) (Lord Lloyd of Hampstead). See “The Ambiguity of Sovereignty” (Hickey, T. J. O.), The Times, 29 January 1971, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹² H.C., Vol. 821, col. 1820 (22 July 1971) (Mr. Wedgwood-Benn).

¹³ H.C., Vol. 822, col. 90 (26 July 1971). See also “Threat of a Rubber-Stamp Parliament,” The Times, 23 July 1971, p. 12Google Scholar (Sir Derek Walker-Smith); leading article in the Spectator, 10 July 1971, pp. 44–45Google Scholar; H.C., Vol. 796, col. 1031 (24 February 1970) (Mr. Douglas Jay).

¹⁴ The Times, 13 February 1971, p. 10.Google Scholar See also, H.C., Vol. 796, col. 1265–1266 (25 February 1970) (Mr. Powell).

¹⁵ See, e.g., H.L., Vol. 323, col. 58 (26 July 1971) (Lord George Brown); Vol. 323, col. 457 (28 July 1971) (Lord Stow Hill), col. 463 (Lord Goodman), col. 472 (Baroness Gaitskell).

¹⁶ H.L., Vol. 323, col. 201 (27 July 1971). In The Times, 17 September 1971, p. 4,Google Scholar Lord Hailsham was quoted as stating in a speech that those opposing Britain's entry to the Common Market are “the fuddy duddies, the timorous, the weakminded.”

¹⁷ H.L., Vol. 323, col. 202.

¹⁸ The Times, 14 July 1971, p. 5Google Scholar (speech at the Mansion House).

¹⁹ H.L., Vol. 243, col. 416 et seq. (2 August 1962). See Thompson, and Marsh, , “The United Kingdom and the Treaty of Rome: Some Preliminary Observations” (1962) 11 I.C.L.Q. 73, 76–78.Google Scholar

²⁰ H.L., Vol. 282, col. 1202 (8 May 1967). See also, Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities, Cmnd. 3301 (May 1967), paras. 20–22. In H.C., Vol. 822, col. 163 (26 July 1971), Mr. Maudling said: “As regards sovereignty, our activities will be bound by our obligations under the Treaty, and by no more than our obligations under the Treaty, which are basically of an economic and a commercial character.”

²¹ H.C., Vol. 821, col. 1709 (22 July 1971) (Sir Alec Douglas-Home).

²² H.C., Vol. 822, col. 51 (26 July 1971) (Mr. Anthony Barber): “We would inevitably be overcome and overshadowed by a larger, stronger and richer Europe. Our political influence would dwindle and history would pass us by.”

²³ H.C., Vol. 809, col. 1116 (20 January 1971) (Mr. Duncan Sandys).

²⁴ See The United Kingdom and the European Communities, Cmnd. 4715 (July 1971),Google Scholar paras. 36–37. See generally, Allen, H. C., The Anglo-American Predicament (The British Commonwealth, the United States and European Unity) (1960)Google Scholar; Catlin, George E. G., The Grandeur of England and the Atlantic Community (1966)Google Scholar; Catlin, The Atlantic Commonwealth (1969); Jay, Douglas, After the Common Market (1968).Google Scholar

²⁵ Cmnd. 4715, para. 29.

²⁶ See, e.g., The United Kingdom and the European Communities (Labour Party's background document for October 1971 conference on the terms negotiated for entry to the Common Market; Published in September 1971). See also, The Case Against Entry (published by the New Statesman, 1971).

²⁷ See de la Mahotière, S. R., The Common Market (A Comprehensive Guide) (1961)Google Scholar and Towards One Europe (1970); Mackay, R. W. G., Towards a United States of Europe (An Analysis of Britain's Role in European Union) (1961)Google Scholar; Hallstein, Walter, United Europe (Challenge and Opportunity) (1962)Google Scholar; Dell, Sidney, Trade Blocs and Common Markets (1963)Google Scholar; Middleton, Drew, The Supreme Choice (Britain and the European Community) (1963)Google Scholar; Beloff, Nora, The General Says No (1963)Google Scholar; Gelber, H. G., Australia, Britain and the E.E.C. (1966)Google Scholar; Gladwyn, Lord, The European Idea (1966)Google Scholar; Beddington-Behrens, Edward, Is There Any Choice? (Britain Must Join Europe) (1966)Google Scholar; Albrecht-Carriè, Renè, The Unity of Europe (An Historical Survey) (1966)Google Scholar; P.E.P., European Unity: Co-operation and Integration (A Survey of European Organisations) (1968); Wall, Edward, Europe: Unification and Law (1969)Google Scholar; Lieber, Robert J., British Politics and European Unity (1970);Google ScholarDouglas, Evans (ed.), Destiny or Delusion: Britain and the Common Market (1971)Google Scholar; Britain, the Commonwealth and Europe (Round Table Essays, 1971Google Scholar (October)); Powell, Enoch, The Common Market (The Case Against) (1971).Google Scholar In the latter book, Mr. Powell writes (at p. 119): “Opinion has been right to fasten upon sovereignty as the central issue. Either British entry is a declaration of intent to surrender this country's sovereignty, stage by stage, in all that matters to a nation, and makes a nation, or else it is an empty gesture, disgraceful in its hollowness alike to those who proffer and to those who accept it.” See also his views reported in The Times, 18 September 1971, p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁸ Meade, James E., U.K., Commonwealth and Common Market (1962) pamphlet), p. 9.Google Scholar See also William Pickles in the Sunday Express, 13 November 1961, p. 8;Google Scholar H.C., Vol. 809, col. 1163 (20 January 1971) (Mr. St. John-Stevas); H.C., Vol. 821, col. 1857 (23 July 1971) (Mr. James Prior).

²⁹ See Lord Gladwyn in H.L., Vol. 323, col. 41 (26 July 1971), and Vol. 316, col. 340 (10 March 1971).

³⁰ H.C., Vol. 728, cols. 1555–1556 (19 May 1966) (Mr. Wilson); H.C., Vol. 786, col. 1159 (8 July 1969) (Mr. Wilson); The Times, 30 July 1969, p. 1 (report of speech by Mr. Wilson).

³¹ H.L., Vol. 323, col. 205 (27 July 1971).

³² See The Observer, 11 July 1971, p. 8Google Scholar (leading article): “The greatest task of European statesmanship may be to try to avert the fatal flaws of a loosely-knit confederation during the long transitional period when an effective federal State will not yet be a possibility.”

³³ See H.L., Vol. 323, col. 370 (27 July 1970). See de la Mahotière, op. cit., pp. 280 et seq.

³⁴ H.C., Vol. 796, col. 1326 (25 February 1970). A variety of views on sovereignty and other issues were expressed during the six-day debate on the Common Market in November 1971—see H.C., Vol. 823, cols. 911 et seq., 1093 et seq., 1234 et seq., 1480 et seq., 1732 et seq., 2076 et seq., See also the debate of October 1971 in H.L., Vol. 324, cols. 529 et seq., 664 et seq., 817 et seq.

³⁵ P.E.P., European Unity (Co-operation and Integration) (1968), p. 189. See generally Schoenbaum, Thomas J., “The Growth of Judicial Power in the European Economic Community” (1969)Google Scholar 48 N. Carolina L.R. 32, 48: “To assure the effectiveness and the implementation of either a federal or a supranational legal order, some type of check must be maintained over the legislative and administrative acts of both the federal or supranational entity and its member states. In the E.E.C., as well as in the United States, much of the responsibility for such control has been delegated to or assumed by the judiciary.”

³⁶ For discussions of Costa v. E.N.E.L. [1964] C.M.L.R. 425, see Schoenbaum's article supra and Eric Stein, “Toward Supremacy of Treaty-Constitution by Judicial Fiat: on the Margin of the Costa Case” (1965) 63 Michigan L.R. 491, esp. at p. 513.

³⁷ See generally de Smith, S. A., “The Constitution and the Common Market: A Tentative Appraisal” (1971)Google Scholar 34 M.L.R. 597; Kahn-Freund, Otto, “Legal Consequences of Common Market,” The Times, 21 May 1962, p. 11Google Scholar; Campbell, Alan, “How the Common Market will affect British Law,” The Times, 16 May 1967, p. 11Google Scholar; J. D. B. Mitchell, “What do you want to be inscrutable for, Marcia?” (or the White Paper on the Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities) (1967) 5 C.M.L.R. 112; Andrew Martin, “The Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities: Jurisdictional Problems” (1968) 6 C.M.L.R. 7; N. M. Hunnings, “Constitutional Implications of Joining the Common Market” (1968) 6 C.M.L.R. 50; G. Bebr, “Law of the European Communities and Municipal Law” (1971) 34 M.L.R. 481.

³⁸ H.L., Vol. 323, col. 203 (27 July 1971).

³⁹ H.L., Vol. 323, col. 58 (26 July 1971).

⁴⁰ See, e.g., Niblock, Michael, The E.E.C.: National Parliaments in Community Decision-Making (1971);Google Scholar Ivor Richard and others, Europe or the Open Sea? (1971); Marsh, Norman S., “The Common Market and the Common Law,” Listener, 15 March 1962, pp. 455–457.Google Scholar

⁴¹ [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1037 (see arguments in The Times law report for 15 March 1971).Google Scholar

⁴² [1971] 1 W.L.R. at p. 1041.

⁴³ Id. at p. 1040. In the course of his judgment, Lord Denning referred to the Costa case.

⁴⁴ Wade, H. W. R., “The Basis of Legal Sovereignty” [1955] C.L.J. 172, 189.Google Scholar See, for recent and important discussions of parliamentary sovereignty: de Smith, S. A., Constitutional and Administrative Law (1971), Chap. 3Google Scholar; Marshall, G., Constitutional Theory (1971), Chap. 3.Google Scholar See also Amerasinghe, C. F., “The Legal Sovereignty of the Ceylon Parliament” [1966] Public Law 65Google Scholar; Bridge, J. W., “The Legal Competence of the New Zealand Parliament” [1969] Public Law 112.Google Scholar