Paper 2 Panic Flashcards
(37 cards)
Evaluate the view that p.sovereignty and a rule of law has been undermined in recent years (EU)
European law is sovereign to UK law - parliament cannot pass any law which conflicts with an EU law. EU controls Britain’s trading policy + holds jurisdiction on on environmental issues (fishing rights + consumer protection). Current basis for leaving the EU still includes ECJ oversight + British courts still subject to outside judgements.
HOWEVER,
Leaving EU means ‘lost sovereignty’ returns to Westminster. Tax law, social security and education are now excluded from the remit of EU. Pooling sov power into EU is only so national objectives can be achieved such as constraining Iranian nuclear power + assisting EU climate change strategy.
Evaluate the view that p.sovereignty and a rule of law has been undermined in recent years (Judiciary)
CRA 2005 results in parliament and executive losing legal sov power. Case of Miller vs Sec.State showed how SC can overturn wishes of UK gov and force a vote on Article 50. Law-making abilities of MPs hindered as a result of judiciary, threats of JR stifle innovative legislation + reform.
HOWEVER,
Parliament created SC + has right to remove obstacle of HR + reclaim legal sov. Miller case example of SC safeguarding, rather than reducing sov.
Evaluate the view that p.sovereignty and a rule of law has been undermined in recent years (Referenda)
Ref. takes decision making of elected reps away from them. Important constitutional issues such as Scottish independence and EU membership view of parliament discarded over a policy which undermines rep democracy and dilutes p.sov.
HOWEVER,
Ref organised through parliamentary votes, EU ref guaranteed by overwhelming majority of parliamentarians. Parliament has right to interpret the results of ref how they see fit, explains current debate about single market membership.
Evaluate the view that the need for further English devolution is now overdue (Metro Mayors)
More powers to mayors = deeper devolution. Burnham (Gr. Manchester) power over transport -> area benefitting, Mayor of West England does not have same power. Wider Dev = include 59% of citizens not represented by a mayor (rural areas). Greater local decision-making + connectedness - Germany emphasis on local democracy. Subsidiary - best decisions made locally) - Burnham anti lockdown for Manchester.
HOWEVER,
Low turnout for all 7 2021 metro-mayor elections (under 40%) - lack of appetite for local democracy. Bristol vote to get rid of their mayor went through (2023), back to combined authority. More local power sent to areas = less accountability for central gov.
Evaluate the view that the need for further English devolution is now overdue (W.Lothian Q)
Blair introduced uni fees (2004) - rejected by Scottish MSPs but the same Labour MSPs voted for tuition fees for English people in Westminster, goes against rule of democracy of MPs being accountable for representation. More tax payer money given to Scots per head than English. SNP blocked 3 English-only Bills (grammar schools, Sunday opening hours, fox hunting)
HOWEVER,
Resentment qualified through EVEL - later revoked by Johnson as wasn’t working. Opinion polls don’t find significant resentment to devolved bodies (lack of concern), SNP usually avoid English issues (lockdown rules)
Evaluate the view that the need for further English devolution is now overdue (English Parliament)
Would equalise devolution across regions by giving more powers to England, as a result would resolve asymmetry in current devolution. Allows focus on unique English issues - would consist solely of English mayors.
HOWEVER,
Takes power away from local people - reverse effect as local mayors would be repealed (juxtaposes Conservative pragmatic approach). English MPs already dominate Westminster, voter fatigue would lead to lower turnouts.
Evaluate the view that since 2010 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Parliamentary Reform)
Don’t have legislative gridlock like the US, Lords + Commons reforms necessary, HOL Reform Act (2014) made provision for members resignation from house, removal for non-attendance + automatic expulsion upon serious criminal offense. HOL Act (2015) - House Standing Orders may provide for the expulsion/suspension of member upon resolution of house.
HOWEVER,
AV failed with 68% of the vote aligning with keeping FPTP, Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 has reversed + prerogative power remains.
Evaluate the view that since 2010 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Devolution)
English Mayors lack powers and are weak - asymmetric dev. Far from the US federal system.
HOWEVER,
Scotland and Wales have been given more powers, English Mayors rolled out across England which will improve local democracy in the UK
Evaluate the view that since 2010 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Rights)
Erosion of rights - need for codification of constitution + entrenchment. Gov since 2010 all sought to get rid of HRA (Dominic Raab). Nationality and Borders Act + Police, Crime and Sentencing Act undermined rights and were passed through a simple majority as lack of entrenchment. Illiberal - allows future gov to erode rights as FPTP involves huge majority.
HOWEVER,
HRA 1998 protected rights along with FOIA 2000 and the Equalities Act 2010 and Marriage Act 2014. Uncodified can be better for protection of rights as it is more malleable in certain situations.
Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is now in urgent need of reform (P.Reforms)
Lords need to reform cronyism - appointment system which undermines democracy, reform to an elected system gives more people the opportunity to sit in the HOL based on merit over patronage (Peter Cruddas buying his way in with donations to Tories). Commons should reduce power of whips, scheduled debates in hands of speaker not gov, increased powers for backbenchers and opposition and reforming FPTP.
HOWEVER,
AV failed with 68% of the vote aligning with keeping FPTP, Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 has reversed + prerogative power remains.
Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is now in urgent need of reform (Codification)
later
Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is now in urgent need of reform (Devolution)
English Mayors lack powers and are weak - asymmetric dev. Far from the US federal system.
HOWEVER,
Scotland and Wales have been given more powers, English Mayors rolled out across England which will improve local democracy in the UK
Evaluate the view that since 2015 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Brexit)
Northern Ireland remains in EU system - single market + subject to EU trade laws and ECJ. Undermined unity of UK, could lead to unified Ireland and independent Scotland.
HOWEVER,
Repatiration of sov - left EU institutions + courts = returning powers to UK. UK can now sign trade agreements with rest of world.
Evaluate the view that since 2015 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Devolution)
English Mayors lack powers and are weak - asymmetric dev. Far from the US federal system.
HOWEVER,
Scotland and Wales have been given more powers, English Mayors rolled out across England which will improve local democracy in the UK
Evaluate the view that since 2015 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (P.Reform)
HOL Act (2015) - House Standing Orders may provide for the expulsion/suspension of member upon resolution of house.
HOWEVER,
AV failed with 68% of the vote aligning with keeping FPTP, Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 has reversed + prerogative power remains.
Evaluate the view that since 2015 constitutional reform has not gone far enough (Rights)
Erosion of rights - need for codification of constitution + entrenchment. Gov since 2015 all sought to get rid of HRA (Dominic Raab). Nationality and Borders Act + Police, Crime and Sentencing Act undermined rights and were passed through a simple majority as lack of entrenchment. Illiberal - allows future gov to erode rights as FPTP involves huge majority.
HOWEVER,
HRA 1998 still protects rights along with FOIA 2000 and the Equalities Act 2010 and Marriage Act 2014. Uncodified can be better for protection of rights as it is more malleable in certain situations.
Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little influence on parliament (Select Committee)
Each S.Com shadows + scrutinises a gov department. BB have influence on S.Com due to 2010 Wright Reform - secret ballots for members + chairs. Hodge (Chair of Public Accounts Com): “more influence in that role than a gov.min”. 40% of SC rec accepted into gov policy - 5p bags (Environment S.Com)
HOWEVER:
S.Com theatrical - shown at culture S.Com by Rupert Murdoch. The govt still has majority over the S.Com’s and most BB still have strong party affiliations (bias).
Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little influence on parliament (Legislation)
Blair lost 4 votes in Commons over a 10yr span, May lost 33 from 2017-19 alone - BB unprecedented influence. 99 Tory BBs revelled against Johnson’s COVID passport idea. Success of CamClegg coalition -> BB grown role in ensuring majorities are reached.
HOWEVER,
Boris Johnson had no commons bill losses. BBs are managed through the selection system of patronage. 2019 saw 21 BB MPs expelled from Tories - dispensible + “elective dictatorship”.
Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little influence on parliament (PMQs)
Growth in urgent questions under Bercow (42 previously to 159) -> BBs enabled to scrutinise gov ministers + PM more effectively. David Davis to Johnson: “for god’s sake, resign” - BBs have power to defer. ERG challenged T.May.
HOWEVER,
Most BB questions scripted rather than direct accountability. BB groupings only work when personal + political powers wane (Johnson + May). Despite scrutiny of Johnson, he could still pass all 34 bills in last parliament.
Evaluate the view that the opposition is ineffective in the HOC (Legislation)
Gov dominates HOC + timetabling. Opposition can only amend a bill, gov can reject amendments with the inbuilt majority. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act saw Labour losing an amendment (359 to 225).
HOWEVER,
When slim/no majority gov, opposition can defeat them - May faced 33 defeats because she could not command majority after 2017 - SNP broke ‘gentlemans’ agreement and voted 3 bills down which May wanted to pass (grammar schools was inteference with education).
Evaluate the view that the opposition is ineffective in the HOC (Opp Days + PMQ)
Labour has 17/20 opposition days, 2020 Labour used a opp day to put forward FSM campaign - but was rejected. PMQs allow opp leader to ask 6 q’s but PM can avoid them, SNP used opp days to call for Gaza ceasefire - led to resignation of 10 Labour MPs and loss of control in areas.
HOWEVER,
Gov later reversed position of FSM after Labour kept issue in public eye. PMQs saw Starmer embarass both Sunak and Johnson multiple times. Lab opp won u-turn from gov for energy windfall tax despite chancellor labelling it as anti-business.
Evaluate the view that the opposition is ineffective in the HOC (S.Committee)
Hodge - effective as chair of committee than she ever was as a Blair gov member. Yvette Cooper - refused shadow cabinet post - chairs Home Affairs S.Com instead. Bi-partisan nature allows opposition to be harder to dismiss.
HOWEVER,
Not able to make substantial changes, Less power than govt, S.Com lacks effectiveness despite bi-partisan. Yvette Cooper ended up on opposition front bench -> reality S.Com lacks power and used as a stepping stone.
Evaluate the view that the HOC is in urgent need of reform (Commons Legislative)
Whips are too powerful + gov does timetabling + speaker has little real control. Whips enforced votes on reluctant Tories over Rwanda Bill. Gov in the way due to majority (FPTP). No way to impeach a PM (US), vote of no confidence enough?
HOWEVER,
Wright reforms could make S.Coms more important due to more bills passing through them, commons can implement gov agenda and there is no gridlock like US.
Evaluate the view that the HOC is in urgent need of reform (Scrutiny)
S.Com theatrical - shown at culture S.Com by Rupert Murdoch. The govt still has majority over the S.Com’s, 60% of reports are ignored by govt.
HOWEVER,
Each S.Com shadows + scrutinises a gov department. BB have influence on S.Com due to 2010 Wright Reform - secret ballots for members + chairs. Hodge (Chair of Public Accounts Com): “more influence in that role than a gov.min”. 40% of SC rec accepted into gov policy - 5p bags (Environment S.Com)