The Shifting Sands of Sovereignty for the UK Government

In the UK today, something of an authoritarian turn in the government has been observed. According to Civicus Monitor, as of December 2024, the UK is an ‘obstructed’ democracy.  Though this has been a progression over the last several years rather than a single event under one single ‘flavour’ of government, today’s government appears naturally happy to inherit these powers and privileges. What this suggests, though, is that the relationship between sovereignty and citizens, as seen by the UK government, is undergoing some reshaping. A closer look at the concept of sovereignty and two recent examples reveals this.

Sovereignty, in international relations, rests with the state. The state has control of the means to fight off threats from outside – armed forces, nuclear weapons, intelligence networks – and the apparatus to enforce order within the state: law, police, courts, prisons, bureaucracy. Constitutionally, the UK’s sovereignty rests in Parliament. In theory, accountability for parliament is dispersed amongst its populace through the democratic process, so that the natural freedoms of individuals may be preserved. Traditionally, it has been said that this is supported by a ‘Good Chap’ theory of government – essentially respecting democratic accountability as a revered convention more than a strict formalised process. It is this model of sovereignty, however, that appears to be undergoing changes. 

A first example comes from the recent tactics used in policing demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians. In July 2025, the Home Secretary listed a Palestinian support group as a terrorist organisation. Over 500 arrests were made at a single event in London, under the Terrorism Act 2000, with some being for nothing more than displaying the two-word name of the recently prescribed protest group. The protesters hit by this action are not considered true sponsors or supporters of terrorism. This is something the UK state must reluctantly appreciate, however, as despite the high number of detentions using police powers on the streets of the protests, there have been only around 70 prosecutions taken forward so far. Of course, the police play a vital role in maintaining a certain peace and order in domestic life, and they can argue that this mission was achieved during the demonstration. But such actions suggest that the UK’s use of its sovereign powers under the Terrorism Act to detain the protestors, was not done completely in good faith. 

The message coming from the state about how it interprets sovereignty in all this should be made clear. PM Starmer is a former Chief of Public Prosecutions, so it is unlikely that he and his government have poor understanding of how the law works. What the state was saying, then, can be interpreted as ‘We don’t think these people support terrorism really, or at least we do not think there’s good evidence for this for most. But what they are doing is politically inconvenient so we will detain and remove them using the powers under the Terrorism Act to look as if we think they do.’

Another more subtle insight into the UK government’s emerging interpretation of sovereignty, is given by the recent messaging to Israel over the situation regarding Palestinians: 

“the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two State Solution.” 

This is a confusing position with regards the question of sovereignty. Generally, people have fitted into one of a few categories of opinion on the recognition of Palestine. The two-state solution – which PM Starmer maintains is still UK policy – says Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty exists and must find a way to be mutually respectful, as independent states. Others assert that that either Israel or Palestine does not have sovereignty, citing reasons of illegitimate colonial conquest, lack of legal foundation, or moral/religious superiority one way or another. The UK government’s recent position, however, has the Palestinians possessing not full sovereignty, and not partial sovereignty, but a potentially full sovereignty that can wax or wane; it is conditional. 

This effectively introduces Palestinian sovereignty as a bartering chip, its presence or absence linked to Israel’s behaviour. Starmer in effect said, ‘whether or not we recognise the Palestinians as sovereign, is on the negotiating table. It is not reserved by virtue of static principle or fact. Palestinians have pseudo-sovereignty which ultimately rests in Israel’s hands.’ Palestinian sovereignty, according to Starmer, crystallises when Israel behaves extremely aggressively towards Palestinians, but is dispersed in the ether when Israel is a good boy. It is Schrodinger’s sovereignty; it neither exists nor does not exist, until certain conditions are fulfilled by the Israeli government and then we can know for sure.

Or can we even know for sure? What becomes the UK’s position if Israel complies with demands, and Palestinian sovereignty disperses, but then Israel piecemeal chips away at its compliance with whatever it agreed? It would hardly be shocking to see this tactic deployed. Would Palestinian sovereignty then rematerialise in solid form once again? It is beginning to appear that the UK government is willing to reshape its sovereign powers, and perhaps even to reinterpret the concept of sovereignty together, in response to new challenges.

Illustrations: Will Allen/Europinion