Relations between institutions Flashcards
The balance of powers have shifted from the executive to the parliament in recent years
1.Small government majority government is heavily reliant on parliament to pass on legislation, from july to december 2019 the conservative government had a very small majority, boris johnson faced over 6 legislative defeats in 5 months in 2019. The power completely shifted to parliament due to their small government majority.
2. prerogatives power over military. Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak has authorised military intervention after the UK joined the US in launching air strikes against Houthi-linked targets in Yemen. The action, which drew on support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, was triggered by continued Houthi attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea, through which around 15 per cent of global seaborne trade passes. Sunak has been criticised by the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru for not seeking parliamentary approval – but he had no legal requirement to do so. The right to deploy UK armed forces remains part of the Royal Prerogative – a power that the Prime Minister derives through the Crown rather than through parliament.
3. party whips less rebellions,Prime ministers with little or no majority in the House of Commons are more likely to come under pressure from rebellious MPs and will have to work much harder at securing the passage of legislation. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair suffered only four defeats in House of Commons votes in their respective 11 and 10 years as Prime Minister,
against
1.Boris Johnson can snap election, he did and he made a net gain of 48 seats(a landslide majority). This significantly strengthened the executives power as shown through the executives control over coronavirus policy and how easily it was to pass.
2.however bypassing parliament Cameron made sure to be approved by Commons to airstrike Syria in 2015- this shows that Cameron had the consensus of the Commons, hindering his power as Commander-in chief
3.can dominate commons but not House of Lords.House of lords are unelected and they can influence decisions and can change decisions made by the house of commons. During the Brexit legislation in 2017-2018, most observers didn’t think that the house of lords could play a crucial role. Conservatives and labour implemented for leaving the EU. however at the end of the process the government had been defeated by the house of lords 15 times in lords votes. It shows that the house of lords are still vital in parliamentIn multiple occasions house of lords defeated the PM such as in boris johnson’s first parliamentary sessions from december 2019 to march 2021, the lords defeated the government on 114 occasions in single parliamentary sessions this has been the most since harold wilson’s government in 1975-76, he was defeated 126 times. But since the house of lords act they have become more brutal, 2021-22 the government suffered no contest defeats in commons but suffered 133 defeats in lords. This shows the executive cannot dominate lords as same with commons.
Parl is weak in limiting PM power as reforms made to strengthen power of parl have been limited in scope and impact.
May realised she was able to hold ‘snap’ election in 2017 despite fixed term parl acts as opposition also asked to dissolve parl.
Parliamentary committees remain weak as they only make recommendations and their reports can be ignored, only about 40% recommendations by dept committees are taken up by gov.
Lords, despite growing assertiveness, continues to lack legitimacy to challenge an elected PM and PMQs are ineffective > the reformed Parliament still unable to sufficiently limit power of PM.
BUT, various reforms to parl by John and Tony Wright have to be recognised for slightly increasing Parl ability to limit power of PM.
Reforms included fixed term parl act which improved select committees to laison committee, backbench business committee.
The reforms have improved effectiveness of parl in limiting power of PM to control business of parl > reforms made parl ‘less poodle, more bulldog’ by ensuring PM is accountable to Parl.
BUT, reforms are weaknesses by PMs significant powers of patronage - can be used to control parl > PMs can use patronage power to maintain dominance over parl and use of whips ensures MPs stay in line with party and PMs reliance on payroll vote prevents parl ability to sufficiently limit power of PM.
The EU continues to exert influence over UK politics
- The Common Fisheries Policy.This policy grants all member states equal access to the waters of all member states, as well as setting quotas and regulations for the number of certain types of fish that are caught. The UK has some of the largest areas of prime fishing under its control and it is believed that allowing fleets from states such as Spain and Portugal to have free access to UK waters triggered a terminal decline in the British fishing industry. The quotas and regulations have failed to reverse the long-term decline of various fish stocks, but have led to fishermen having to throw dead fish back into the sea because they would otherwise exceed their quota, again causing hardship for the British fishing industry. A Spanish fishing company, Factortame, sued the UK government for restricting its access to UK waters. The law lords, who formed the highest UK court at the time, followed the European Court of Justice in ruling that the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act, which the government was using to support its position, could not be allowed to stand because it violated EU law
2.The ‘social chapter’ relates mostly to workers’ rights. The UK initially had an opt-out from this, but in 1997 New Labour brought it into UK law. The social chapter was designed to protect workers’ rights and ensure a certain quality of life, enforced by the EU. This would cover rules about the maximum number of hours a person could work each week (48), legally required breaks, holiday and sick pay, as well as issues relating to maternity leave and pay. Although the UK did have an opt-out in some areas, such as workers being allowed to work beyond 48 hours a week if they asked to, many small and medium British industries have suggested the cost of complying with such regulations has made Britain less competitive in the international market and seen factories and jobs go to other parts of the world, like India and China, where employment is cheaper. It is also a policy area that highlights a distinct cultural difference between the UK and other member states. The UK tends to favour free-market capitalism with a minimum role for the state and it opposesEuropean-style social policy with strong protections for workers and a greater role for the state in employment areas.
3.Based on one of the four freedoms, the free movement of people, the EU has always maintained a policy of a citizen of one state being treated as an equal citizen in whichever EU country they reside. The UK has tried to resist this, attempting to block the free movement of people from Romania and Bulgaria when these countries joined in 2007. The belief is that citizens from poorer countries would travel to take advantage of the UK’s relatively generous welfare provisions, including access to the NHS. It has also seen a rise in families from Eastern Europe settling in the UK, requiring UK schools to adapt to a more multilingual system of teaching in some areas. This caused a great deal of resentment across some sections of UK society, though it is worth bearing in mind that the tax revenue from EU citizens working in the UK far exceeded the costs incurred by welfare recipients from the EU. In 2016, UCL academics Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr. Tommaso Frattini calculated that immigrants from the EU were less likely to claim benefits and on average contribute more to the UK economy than native British citizens. As Dustmann put it at apress conference, ‘these guys (EU citizens living in the UK) pay more in than they take out’.
UK Supreme Court”
Effective in checking the power of the govt
1. judicial review (2017 Gina Miller Case. 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union+ 2019 Prorogation Case)
2. declarations of incompatibility (since 2000, 29 declarations have been made + 2019 R V Sec of State for Home Department deemed the right to rent scheme incompatible with article 14 of ECHR + David Miranda v Sec of State for Home Department saw 2000 Terrorism Act stopped + 2004 Belmarsh Case)
3. judicial interpretation of HRA (2005 Afghan Hijackers Case + 2012 Abu Qatada
4. limit PMs prerogative power,Supreme court was in favour of Gina miller who was against the government, 2016 Gina Miller requested a judicial review of whether the secretary of state for exiting the EU(David Davis) had the prerogative power to trigger article 50 which would start the process of UKs departure her argument was parliament is sovereign and it stands above the prerogative power to bring UK out of EU. The court ruled the government didn’t have prerogative power and sovereignty of parliament had to be exercised. It forced the government to seek parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 and begin the process to leave the EU.
5. The Supreme court goes in favour of individuals over the security of the state such as Abu Qatada. additionally , supreme court ruling to save thousands of lives a year by forcing the government to urgently clean up pollution from diesel vehicles, the main source of the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide was found in many UK towns and cities. The UK supreme court questioned the government’s interference plans to cut illegal levels of our pollution in Britain and ordered new ones by the end of the year.
Ineffective
1. judicial review limited (judicial review doesn’t lead to criminal prosecutions and decrease of judicial review cases by 19% from 2020 to 2021 + 2022 Judicial Review Act limiting power of judiciary)
2. government can ignore declarations of incompatibility (2004 Belmarsh case still saw parliament legislate to introduce control orders which enabled gov to monitor the whereabouts of foreign terrorist suspects and broadened detention control as after this 52 individuals were subject from just 9 previously)
3. proposal of British Bill of Rights and legislation passed impedes on civil rights (2021 Crime and Sentencing Bill and 2022 Nationality and Border Bill infringes civil rights such as restricting freedom of expression and asylum seekers from entering UK + Dominic Raab proposed to repeal HRA in Queens Speech + Conservative proposal of British Bill of Rights doesn’t ensure same meaning as ECHR)
Supreme court wields excessive power over parliament and the executive
1.Parliament is more sovereign, in 2010 the supreme court ruled that the government didn’t act lawfully to freeze bank assets of terrorist suspects. PM brown was angry but had to accept it at the time. In the event, a new statute was passed later(terrorist asset freezing act 2010), the will of the parliament and the government prevailed.
2. The Supreme court ruled over the executive. In 2019 uk supreme court of appeal and recently ruled lawfulness advice given by the queen by boris johnson to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks. The president of the supreme court explained all 11 justices sat on penal during 3 day hearing because the issue of whether parliament had lawfully prorogued was an issue of constitutional impatience. If Gina Miller’s appeal has not leaked out of parliament, they would have been prorogued until 14th october 2019, would have been scheduled a little over 2 weeks from the scheduled date for the uk to leave the EU. EU law forms part of the constitution so if the PM should be scrutinised by parliament as its a democratic body, most likely a codified constitution, PMs drive would have not been justifiable.
3.The Supreme court goes in favour of individuals over the security of the state such as Abu Qatada. additionally , supreme court ruling to save thousands of lives a year by forcing the government to urgently clean up pollution from diesel vehicles, the main source of the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide was found in many UK towns and cities. The UK supreme court questioned the government’s interference plans to cut illegal levels of our pollution in Britain and ordered new ones by the end of the year.
EVALUATE HOW FAR PARLIAMENT RETAINS SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN UK POLITICAL SYSTEM
Devolution of power from Parl to Scot, Wales and N.Ireland meant that while Parl retains legal sovereignty, in reality, Parl has conceded great deal of political sovereignty.
Devolution gave away large areas of law making e.g. major powers like setting income tax rates and control over welfare services like housing devolved to Scot (Scot referendum 2014), resulting in more pluralist democracy.
Attempt to exercise democracy by reclaiming powers would cause huge political controversy - powers could not be returned back to Parl without referendums - confirming it is will of the people.
BUT, undermines parliamentary sovereignty, strongly highlighting that Parl has lost great deal of political sovereignty.
On other hand, UK is not federal state and Parl only transferred powers to devised bodies not sovereignty.
Unitary nature of UK constitution emphasises parls ultimate sovereignty.
All removal of power from Parl has been set out and approved by parl, with clearly defined limits e.g. control over Justice and Police not been devolved to Welsh assembly and aspect of on income Tax reforms with UK gov.
Sovereign nature of UK parl further emphasised by suspension of devolution.
UK gov dissolved N.Ireland assembly in between 2002-07 when tensions grew between two communities.
Assembly also suspended since Jan 2017 as talks collapsed between two sides - thus specific and limited nature of all devolution of power, as well as potential reversibility, sets clearly defined limit to any loss of sovereignty.
Nevertheless, sovereignty does not stay within parl in UK and has resulted in quasi-federalism, it that it’s unlikely that devolved powers will ever return to UK parl.
2
BUT, parl retains some sovereignty with UK political system as judiciary remains soveriegn to parl.
Supreme court judges cannot strike down laws - judges may recommend laws for amendemnt that do not conform to Human Rights Act by issuing ‘declaration of incompatibility’.
But, parl retains sovereignty by deciding whether to change terms or not.
Furthermore, UK does not have go conform to rulings made by ECHR e.g. Parl consistently refused to extend franchise to prisoners, despite 3 ruling by ECHR.
BUT, intro of Human Rights Act means parl put under significant pressure from the judiciary.
Political difficulty of resisting pressure of a declaration of incompatibility from Supreme Court can be significant restriction on parl’s ability to exercise sovereignty in practice.
Most cases, parl will change law to preserve UK’s reputation protecting human rights e.g. Beismarsh case 2004, law lords rules 2001 crime and security act incompatible with ECHR - as result, gov chose to take judges warning and recall prisoners.
So certain institutions like judiciary can effectively exercise power over parl which limits their sovereignty.
Despite this, parl retains sovereignty through passage of control orders - passage of prevention of Terrorism Act allowed Home Secretary to improve control order, which essentially amount to indefinite nature arrest.
3
Parl retains legal sovereignty in UK.
Parl has power to pass laws on any subject - move, amend or unmake any laws.
Legal sovereignty has never been seriously challenged and is more significant than political sovereignty - cannot be given away by Parl.
EU referendum was called by Parl - EU referendum Act 2015 was not binding > unlike initiatives in USA, electorate cannot initiate national referendum by themselves.
Referendums could be overruled by parl, showing that sovereignty rests with parl, rather than the people.
On other hand, increased use of referendums shows sovereignty effectively passed to the people, rather than parl making final decision on constitutional matters.
Political difficulty of parl overruling a referendum vote reduces it’s own sovereignty.
Though parl must confirm referendum vote, virtually unthinkable hat parl includes will of the people.
Parl has not controlled EU referendum result therefore people have effectively exercised sovereignty on this issue opposed to parl > shows a form is wholly representative democracy where parl is sovereign, to a more direct democracy where people are sovereign.
BUT, Gina Miller case confirmed that parl remains sovereign even after referendum decision and their outcome must be confirmed by parl.
EVALUATE EXTENT TO WHICH UK GOVS CONTROL OVER PARL HAS REDUCED IN RECENT YEARS
Reduced but increased in number of rebellions in HoCs.
Gov rarely loses legislation in votes in commons, do withdraw bills in which they fear defeat or make issue a free vote.
Brexit > greater divisions and reduces chances of individuals acting along party lines, made difficult for May to control Parl - evident when May attempted push for brexit deal, Bill first passed through and faced target defeat for gov motion by 250 votes (2014) - May unable to keep cons votes at 118 Cons votes against her bill.
Gig still holds lot of control over Parl encouraged through power of whips > ensure PM gets guaranteed votes by offering potential for PM patronage > through ministerial position or a better office.
Carrot and stick method utilised by the whips ensure gov has backing of party in commons.
Gov rely on intense pay toll of 100mps.
Para 2
Whipping system, payroll vote and PMS power of patronage allows gov considerable control over parl - but FPTP failed to produce strong and stable gov which led to decrease in gov control over parl.
Increased assertive nature of HoLs sting indicator of decline of gov control - following HoLs Reform Act 1999 - removed all but 92 hereditary peers and reduced no. of house to -100.
Peers now appointed from experience in certain field > more active house willing to question and scrutinise gov.
Reform of the Lords Act led to removal of party majority in Upper house.
Largest group are crossbench peers who have no part affiliation > makes lords more independent and failure of FPTP producing majority in 2010 and 2017 raised question about nature and relevance of Salisbury convention - made peers more assertive and safe against bills in governors manifesto e.g. LOAIS, upper house rely on tax cuts.
More assertive nature shows power of gov is threatened.
BUT HoLs is unelected body which usually deters will of elected body after period of Parl pingponging.
Peers recognise they are unelected and unaccountable so deter from will if the commons.
Parl act 1911 and 1949 allowed gov to overcome persistent opposition from the Lords e.g. Hunting Act 2004 passed by Commons after bypassing Lords.
eat that assertiveness of Lords is indication of gov decreasing control.
Para 3
Gov regained great amount of control over parl - displayed by power gov has - gov noted umber of powers e.g. right to change laws using secondary legislation which is used increasingly in recent years and allowed gov to keep power of Park > details of policies with the details of legislation having been approved prior in primary legislation > reduced amount of scrutiny parl faces.
Secondary legislation allows gov to control parl as they will allow ministers to make changes to primary legislation allowing UKs exit from EU.
Para 4
But parl continues to limit gov power by forcing gov to accept resting on certain prerogatives e.g. right to authorise military actions.
2015, commons allowed this convention by requesting permission for military action in Syria and Cameron responded to defeat of gov action.
Fixed term Parl Act 2015 removed PMs power to choose fate or general election unless 2/3rds of MPs support.
Gov has considerable amount of power which is evident by May’s Air Strike 2018 Syria, authorising her prerogative powered without permission from Parl.
