the uk constitution pt2 Flashcards
(27 cards)
what was the purpose of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011
- prevent the PM from calling elections for party advantage
- made the general election cycle to every 5 years unless: 2/3 MPs voted for early election OR a gov lost vote of no confidence and no replacement found in 14 days
pros of Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011
PROS
- PM cant call snap elections bc fixed 5 year election cycle. in past Tony Blair called elections 2001 and 2005 top suit his party
- increased stability and predictability - 2010-15 con lib dem coalition completed a full term helped by FTPA rules. it gave parties and voters clearer explanations
- showed clear rules for early elections - it laid out 2 mechanisms: 1.) 2/3 vote in the commons, 2.) no confidence vote with no new gov in 14 days –> improved clarity
- strengthened democracy and public trust
cons of Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011
- failed to prevent early elections - eg still held in 2017 theresa May and 2019 BJ. In 2019 BJ bypassed FTPA by passing the Early parliamentary general election act –> shows the acts weakness
- didnt work in hung parliaments - after 2017 election theresay May lacked majority + relied on DUP and FTPA made difficult to resolve gridlock.
- reduced flexibility in crises - during brexit 2019 deadlock the PM couldn’t trigger election to break impassse. the act stopped the ability to respond faster
the Scotland Act 2016
- passed in response to 2014 scottish independence ref where 55% voted remain
- gave scottish parliament:
- ability to set income tax rates and bands - it could raise or lower tax for scots
- control the receipt of some VAT revenue
- increase power over welfare andf socia security –> like creating new benefits
- the act also made it clear scottish devolution is permanent but sov lies in westminster so any future independence ref needs approval of parliament
the Wales Act 2014 & 2017
2014
- granted Welsh Assembly (Send) limited powers to raise taxes eg stamp duty and landfill
2017
- gave Senedd ability to determine its own electoral system (w westminsters approval)
- recognised the permanence of the welsh assembly and gov
- shifted devolution model to a reserved powers model like scotlands –> the Assembly could legislate in any area not explicilty reserved to westminster
the election of mayors in cities and regions
2017 onwards
- uk introduced directly elected metro mayors into major cities and combined authorities eg Manchester, west midlands
- the mayors were given power over: transport, planning, housing, economic deveolpment
- in 2021 great Manchester and west yorkshire - allowed to run own policing
positive impacts of further devolution from 2010
- increased legitimacy of devolved institutions - suited better for regional needs
- encouraged political innovation eg scotlands different income tax structure
- mayors in england improved local accountibility and representation. EG Andy Burnham th greater manchester mayor gained national influence
negative impacts of further devolution from 2010
- asymmetric devolution remains
- power still rests in westminster so overrides devolved areas
- devolution has made governance more complex eg health and education
- mayoral powers still too limited and large parts of england are still too centralised with no devolution at all
Recall of the MPs Act 2015
- gives voters a way to remove MPs between elections if they’re involved in serious wrongdoing
- they are called if: MP gets custodial sentence of less than 12 months, MP suspended from parliament for 10 days, MP convicted of providing false expenses claims
- if 10% of voters in the constituency sign the petition and election gets held
EXAMPLES
1. Fiona Onasanya (labour MP) removed in 2019 bc convicted of perverting the course of justice
2. Chris Davies (con MP) recalled in 2019 for expenses fraud - but he stood in and lost the subsequent election
pros and cons of the Recall of the MPs Act 2015
PROS
- increased accountibility and direct democracy –> voters got more power between elections and showed MPs not above the law
- used appriopriatley in serious cases –> Act not misused and only triggered in serious cases of need
CONS
- MP can stand again after being recalled eg chris Davies ran again in 2019 election –> undermining the process
- doesnt cover political honestly –> MPs cant be recalled for breaking manifesto promises, lying to public - limits voter power
English Votes For English Laws (EVEL) 2015
- new parliamentary procedure 2015 under Cameron’s Con gov
- applied when a bill affected only England
- MPs repping S, NI, W barred from voting
- it attempted to adress the West Lothian Question –> why scottish MPs could vote england-only matters while english MPs couldn’t vote on devolved issues in scot
- it was scrapped in 2021 tho bc it faile to resolve the west lothian question effecitvely
the process of English Votes For English Laws (EVEL) 2015
- new law proposed in parliament as usual
- speaker of HoC decides if bill only apllies to england or oarts of it
- all MPs debate + vote on bill in 2nd reading
- if bill english only english related when only English MPs vote on it
- all MPs vote again on the whole bill
pros and cons of English Votes For English Laws (EVEL) 2015
PROS
- restores fairness after devolution and gave england greater self-governance in UK
- enhances english representation - allows english MPs to have final say on laws only affecting their constituents
CONS
- still non-english MPs vote on final bill - at 3rd reading stage –> undermines the system
- increased conservative dominance –> helped cons push bills by excluding opposition MPs from devolved nations, especically in 2015,17,19 when they had a majority of english seats
the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 (Brexit)
- formally enacted Brexit - confirming the UK’s legal departure from the EU on 1 February 2020
- allowed transititon period til end of 2021 where uk remained in EUs single market and customs union
- protected the rights of EU citizens livi gin UK vice versa
- had special arrangements for NI to avoid a harder boarder with republic of ireland
pros and cons of the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 (Brexit)
PROS
- respected 2016 ref result –> fulfilling BJs ‘get brexit done’ promise
- avoided a ‘harder boarder’ in ireland –> NI Protocol allowed goods and flows across the Irish border without checkpoints
- gave legal certainity for businesses and EU citizens
CONS
- devisive and unresolved –> many remain voters still opposed it 48.1% voted remain
- created two-teir system for NI –> good between GB and NI face checks causing disruption + anger from unionists
- post brexit details unclear avoided setting out the future UK-EU relationship especialy on trade –> uncertainity continued to 2021 and beyond
what are the debates on future constitutional reform
reforms have been propsed in response to grwoing demands for clarity and fairness in how uk is governed including:
- devolution for england
- replacing the HRA with a british Bill of Rights
- introducing codified constitution
arguments FOR an english parliament
- england is only uk nation without own gov creating democratic imbalance –> Scottish Parliament, Senedd, NI Assembly
- it could be based outside London –> tackle N-S divide and reduce political centralisation
- help solve permanently the West Lothian Question –. only English MPs would vote on English laws. eg in Housing bill 2016, scottish MPs couldn’t vote bc EVEL so English parliament would make this peranent
arguments AGAINST a english parliament
- if everyone has a nation parliament then whats the point for a UK parliament in Westminster
- west Lothian question already adresses by EVEL 2015 and scrapped in 2021 –> shows how the issues could be tackled without major structural change. it was also scrapped bc £ and hard to use –> this would be even harder
- public support low. YouGov poll found 18% ppl supported creation of english parliament –. creating it could undermine public trust
what are regional assemblies
- england doesnt have any regional assemblies but some cities like manchester and Liverpool have mtro mayors with devolved powers
- regional assemblies were proposed in early 200s but rejected in 2004 north east referendum - voters said no by 78%
arguments FOR regional assemblies
- reflect local identity better than westminster - EG 2012 gov proposed ‘pasty tax’ (VAT rise on hot food) which was seen as tone deaf to places like Cornwall where pasties are culturally significant. reg as couldve blocked this
- better decisions on tax and services –> rather than national one size fits all policies make them more specific to the area
- fixes aasymmetric devolution –> S,WW,NI have national assemblies but egland doesnt. so creating regional assemblies make uk more rederal and balanced
- improves democratic legitimacy increase participation making local govs accountable. innovation in public policy like scots smoking ban in 2006
arguments AGAINST regional assemblies
- Most regions lack strong identity - eg voters in east midlands dont have a distinct cultrual identity
- damge tax competition - if regions set own taxes –. tax competition. eg if a region lowers corporation tax to attract businesses this undermines national equality causing ‘race to bottom’. this would harm poor regions that cant afford tax cuts
- current model of asymmetric devolution works –> metro mayors deliver local governance without needing full assemblies
- public support limited - 2004 north east ref, nearly 80% of voters rejected regional assemblies so would be undemocrartic to introduce them
info about replacin gthe HRA with the British Bill of Rights
- HRA incorporates the ECHR into UK law
- it allows uk ppl to raise HR issues in british courts rather than going to the EU court in Strasbourg
- right wing views: HRA gives too much power to unelected judges. some rulings are seen as foreign interference
- left wing views: HRA doesn’t go far enough to protect rights against gov reach, HRA should be more entrenched and harder for future govs to weaken
arguments FOR a British bill of Rights
- reduces influence of Strasbourg –> ppl argue ECHR has too much power and a uk bill would let uk courts restore parl sov. EG - Hirst v UK 2005 ruled that UKs ban on prisoners voting violated their rights
- clarifies rights and how they should be applied –> tailoring them to modern UK issues
- prevents judicial overreach –> ppl say under HRA judges interpret rights broadly. new bill could narrow scope of judicial interpretation
- liberals support –> lid dems also support to expand protections eg for assylm seekers
- HRA not entrenched –> it can be changed or replealed by simple Act oif Parliament - vulnerable. 2019 Con manifesto promised to ‘update’ HRA
arguments AGAINST a British bill of Rights
- rights could be weakened –> eg gov could reduce protections for refugees, protesters or minorities
- HRA has good balance already –> under HRA, courts cant strike down laws but only issue a declaration of incompatibility leaving final decision to parliament. this respects sov and upholds rights
- lack of political consensus –> theres no agreement on what Bill of Rights would include. there are left and right disagreements on key issues like privacy, freedom of speech, assylm and protestor rights
- damage UKs international image –> copuld be seen as UK retreating from EU values after Brexit therefore may harm relations with Council of Europe
