relationship between the branches Flashcards
role and the composition of the supreme court.
According to the rule of law, everyone is equal before the law. The government is
no more above the law than any individual citizen. Therefore, the UK as a liberal
democracy, requires a clear and unequivocal separation of power between the executive and the judiciary. This is vital so that UK citizens can be confident that
their civil liberties are being protected.
The judiciary represents the courts and judges, who dispense justice throughout the
United Kingdom. Lower courts such as crown courts and magistrates’ courts resolve cases. The judgments that are reached in more senior courts, such as the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, are especially important because
they set legal precedents that can then be referred to in subsequent cases. This is
a key function of the more senior courts. Although Parliament enacts legislation,
the meaning and relevance of those laws have to be worked out by judges. This is
because, in a particular case, it may not be certain how an Act of Parliament should
be interpreted. There may not even be a relevant Act of Parliament to refer to.
The way in which senior judges interpret Acts of Parliament and resolve cases thus
creates a legal precedent, known as case law or judge-made law, which judges are
expected to follow in subsequent cases. This provides the basis for British common
law, in which the decisions of senior judges in previous cases achieve the force
of precedence. As Bishop Benjamin Hoadly (1676–1761) put it: ‘Whoever hath an
absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the
lawgiver and not the person who first wrote or spake them.’
As the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom, the judgments reached by the
UK Supreme Court are of profound importance. Important cases, in which the
meaning of the law is uncertain, are judged by the Supreme Court and the decisions
that it reaches must be followed in future cases.
The UK Supreme Court is a relatively new court. The highest court of appeal in
the UK had been the House of Lords, where the 12 Law Lords delivered judgments
in the Appellate Committee. However, the fact that the most senior judges in the
UK sat in the House of Lords breached the principle of the ‘separation of powers’,
whereby the judiciary ought to be separate from the legislature. Therefore, as part of
the Blair government’s commitment to modernising the British constitution, the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed. This removed the Law Lords from
the House of Lords and in its place established the Supreme Court. Consequently, the
separation power is now transparently obvious as the chief justices make judgments
in a separate building from where those laws are enacted.
l The 12 most senior judges in the UK now sit in the Supreme Court and are
called Justices of the Supreme Court. The head of the Supreme Court is known
as its president.
l The work of the new Supreme Court is more open to public scrutiny than had
been the case with the Appellate Committee.
l The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court reaches across the UK, and it is the highest
court of appeal for all civil cases. It is also the final court of appeal for all criminal
cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the High Court of
Justiciary, in most cases, fulfils this role.
l The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal when there is a judicial review of
how the government has acted.
l The Supreme Court also has the authority to determine whether an issue ought
to be under the jurisdiction of the British government or a devolved body.
l The membership of the Supreme Court is determined by a five-member selection
commission made up of the most senior judges in the UK. Their nominations
are then passed for approval to the justice secretary, who has one opportunity to
reject a nomination. Once agreed, the prime minister asks the monarch to make
the appointment.
It is vital that the Justices of the Supreme Court are independent of the legislature
and the executive. The rule of law depends on judges not being influenced by the
government. Instead, the decisions that they reach should be entirely based on the
principles of justice. Judges are also expected to be neutral, which means that their
judgments should never be influenced by any social or political prejudice.
In what ways can the Supreme Court claim to be
independent and neutral? vs Criticisms of the independence and neutrality of the
Supreme Court
Judges in the UK are not permitted to be members of a political
party. A barrister or solicitor may be a member of a political party
and may pursue a political career but once appointed, a judge must
abandon any political ambitions and associations. (use the political party)
compared this to
That the members of the Supreme Court are generally from such an elite background
has led to claims that they tend to favour the establishment. In 1977, John Griffith,
a radical socialist academic, argued in The Politics of the Judiciary that socially and
politically conservative judges always favour the status quo. For example, one of
the most famous judges of the twentieth century, Lord Denning, sided with the
government on several occasions. In the Hosenball case (1977), for example, he
boldly asserted, ‘In some parts of the world national security has been used as an
excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England.’
backed up by the fact that he was homophobic
“We must not allow this cult of homosexuality, making it equal with heterosexuality, to develop in our land. We must preserve our moral and spiritual values.”
“I do not agree. The English are no longer a homogeneous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out… They will never accept the word of a policeman against one of their own.”
traditional conservative ideas yet not a part of the conservative party.
l The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was also designed to make appointments
to the judiciary more transparent. Previously, the Lord Chancellor had advised
the prime minister through ‘secret soundings’ of senior judges. This, it could
be argued, led to a self-perpetuating socially elitist judiciary. In its place a new
Judicial Appointments Commission was established, which selects judges on their
merit and good character.
vs
The government also retains some political influence over the appointment of
Justices of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 merged the
position of lord chancellor with that of justice secretary. The justice secretary, who
does not need to have a legal background, is a member of the cabinet. Despite this,
the selection committee for new Justices of the Supreme Court must pass their
recommendations to the justice secretary, who can request further information and
retains the right to reject a nominee. This power would only be used in exceptional
circumstances and only one nomination can be rejected, but it does show how there
is not a complete separation of powers in the UK.
l Appointments to the Supreme Court are decided by a specially summoned five-
person selection committee comprising the lord president of the Supreme Court,
a senior judge and representatives of the Judicial Appointments Commission
of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. If candidates for the
Supreme Court are deemed to be of equal merit, then the selection committee
may ‘prefer one candidate over the other for the purpose of increasing diversity
within the group of persons who are judges in the court’.
vs
Critics of the Supreme Court’s ability to provide justice therefore argue that its
membership is so privileged that the decisions it makes are unlikely to reflect
how the law impacts on modern society. Most Justices of the Supreme Court
have been privately educated and attended Oxford or Cambridge universities, and
these rarefied experiences could make them ill-suited to interpreting the law in a
contemporary setting. In short, some critics have argued that the privileges and
prejudices of their class hinder the justices of the Supreme Court from maintaining
judicial neutrality. Men also dominate the Supreme Court. In 2022, Lady Rose
was the only female judge on the Supreme Court.
2/3 of the judicary have been eductaed at priavte sckl at secodary skl level.
Enemies of the people
In the 1970s judges were often criticised by the left for
being socially and politically ultra-conservative. A good
example of this was in 1984 when the Thatcher government
banned employees at GCHQ (Government Communications
headquarters) from joining a trade union since this could
pose a threat to national security. When the case reached
the House of Lords, the Lords Appellate decided in favour of
the government because as an issue of national security it
was beyond their jurisdiction. However, in recent years the
main criticism of the judges has come from the right. Judges,
some on the right claim, far from being ultra-conservative are
instead ultra-liberal — using the Human Rights Act to stop criminals from being deported from the UK and trying to hinder
the will of the British public by opposing Brexit..
The rule of law
In one of the last rulings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Hope, in a
case involving the possible deportation to Jordan of radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada, clearly
articulated the principle of judicial neutrality: ‘No one, however dangerous, however disgusting,
however despicable, is excluded [from the European Convention on Human Rights]. Those
who have no respect for the rule of law — even those who would seek to destroy it — are in the
same position as everyone else.’
In what ways does the Supreme Court limit the
authority of the executive and Parliament?
although the Supreme Court cannot strike down parliamentary
statute because Parliament is supreme, it can determine whether the actions of the
government are in accordance with the law. It does this through ‘judicial review’ ,
whereby a judge can review the action of a public body, including the government,
and decide whether it was lawful. If unlawful, that decision can be quashed. Judicial
review is therefore highly important in ensuring that public bodies are held legally
accountable for the decisions they make.
The Gina Miller case 2017 (1)
R Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
The Gina Miller case demonstrates how the Supreme Court can determine the
legality of government action. Following the EU referendum on 23 June 2016, the
government claimed that it could begin the process of leaving the European Union
through the exercise of the royal prerogative. However, on 24 January 2017, the
Supreme Court, by a majority of 8–3, upheld an earlier decision taken in the High
Court which stated that the government did not have the authority to do this. This
was because Parliament in 1972 had enacted the legislation which had taken the UK
into the EU and so it was Parliament’s responsibility to enact legislation to remove
the UK from membership of the EU. As the then president of the Supreme Court,
Lord Neuberger, stated in the Supreme Court’s judgment:
‘Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as
well as changing legal rights … The UK’s constitutional arrangements require such
changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament.’
The fact that the High Court and then the Supreme Court had both declared that
Parliament must consent to the government opening negotiations to withdraw from
the EU was seen by some supporters of Brexit as an attempt to subvert the result of the
referendum. However, this was not the case. The judges were simply determining
the proper location of legal sovereignty in an issue of vital constitutional importance.
deciding whether a public body, including the government, has acted beyond its
authority (ultra vires)
In August 2019, the prime minister, Boris Johnson, announced that he had decided
to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for 5 weeks that autumn. Prime ministers possess
this right. However, the length of time that Parliament would not be sitting caused
accusations that the prime minister wanted to limit parliamentary opposition to his
EU withdrawal proposals and so his actions were motivated by political self-interest.
As a result, Gina Miller and the SNP MP Joanna Cherry brought two cases against
the prime minister alleging that the government was illegally seeking to limit
Parliament’s sovereign right to hold the government to account. Gina Miller initially
lost her case at the High Court, but in Scotland Joanna Cherry’s case was upheld.
Consequently, both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court to determine the
meaning of the law. On 24 September, the 11 justices hearing the case unanimously
found that the prime minister had acted illegally by suspending Parliament for such
an excessively long time when momentous constitutional issues needed to be fully
debated.
In her judgment, Lady Hale, the then president of the Supreme Court, stated,
‘The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty
to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or
preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without
reasonable justification.’ Consequently, ‘It is for Parliament, and in particular the
Speaker and the Lord Speaker, to decide what to do next. Unless there is some
parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to
enable each house to meet as soon as possible.’
According to Gina Miller, the judgment represented ‘a win for parliamentary
sovereignty’ since it legally confirmed that the prime minister had improperly used
the royal prerogative when attempting to prorogue Parliament.
l declaring when government has acted in defiance of the Human Rights Act
HJ and HT v Home Secretary (2010)
Two men from Iran and Cameroon respectively claimed asylum in the UK because
they were gay and consequently would suffer persecution in their home country.
The Home Office refused to allow them asylum on the grounds that if they
concealed their sexuality, they would not suffer persecution. When the case reached
the Supreme Court, Lord Hope decided against the Home Office. In his judgment
he clearly stated,
‘Unlike a person’s religion or political opinion, [sexual orientation] is incapable of
being changed. To pretend that it does not exist, or that the behaviour by which
it manifests itself can be suppressed, is to deny the members of this group their
fundamental right to be what they are — of the right to do simple, everyday things
with others of the same orientation such as living or spending time together or
expressing their affection for each other in public.’
Determining the meaning of the law
R v Jogee (2016)
In R v Jogee (2016), the Supreme Court overturned the principle of ‘joint enterprise’,
which was established in common law whereby those who were part of a group that
incited a murder could be convicted of the crime in the same way as the one who
had actually done the killing. Instead, the Supreme Court stated that there had to
be ‘intent to kill’ shown if members of a group were all to be held guilty of murder.
In other cases the Supreme Court has also had to determine the extent to which the
Human Rights Act impacts the individual’s relationship with the state.
P v Cheshire West and Cheshire Council (2014)
In the case of ‘P’, a man with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy was placed with
social services, who limited his personal freedom as part of his care. In a powerful
judgment, with far-reaching consequences for the care of mentally disabled people,
Lady Hale stated:
‘Far from disability entitling the state to deny such people human rights,
rather it places upon the state (and upon others) the duty to make reasonable
accommodation to cater for the special needs of those with disabilities … Those
rights include the right to personal liberty which is guaranteed by Article 5 of the
European Convention … If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to
live in a particular place subject to constant monitoring and control and unable to
move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available then
it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person. The fact that my
living arrangements are comfortable, and indeed make my life as enjoyable as it
could possibly be, should make no difference. A gilded cage is still a cage.’
The Supreme Court and parliamentary sovereignty
The Belmarsh case (2004) provides the classic example of the tensions between the
judiciary and the executive. In 2004, the Blair government used the powers given to
it by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to hold foreign terrorist suspects
indefinitely without trial. The Law Lords declared that this was discriminatory
according to the European Convention on Human Rights since British terrorist
suspects were not being treated in the same way. The government accepted the ruling
and the detainees were released. However, soon after, the government introduced
legislation into Parliament to monitor the whereabouts of these and other foreign
terrorist suspects using control orders (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005). This shows that although a declaration of incompatibility can have significant moral
influence, the executive’s ability to circumvent the judiciary is still great.
Debate
Is the Supreme Court influential?
If the Supreme Court declares a formal statement of incompatibility between an Act of Parliament and the European Convention on Human Rights, that will put significant political pressure on the government to amend the law.
for ecxample ;
HJ and HT v Home Secretary (2010)
Two men from Iran and Cameroon respectively claimed asylum in the UK because
they were gay and consequently would suffer persecution in their home country.
The Home Office refused to allow them asylum on the grounds that if they
concealed their sexuality, they would not suffer persecution. When the case reached
the Supreme Court, Lord Hope decided against the Home Office. In his judgment
he clearly stated,
‘Unlike a person’s religion or political opinion, [sexual orientation] is incapable of
being changed. To pretend that it does not exist, or that the behaviour by which
it manifests itself can be suppressed, is to deny the members of this group their
fundamental right to be what they are — of the right to do simple, everyday things
with others of the same orientation such as living or spending time together or
expressing their affection for each other in public.’
The cases were both remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration taking into account the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.
no
In 2004, the Blair government used the powers given to
it by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to hold foreign terrorist suspects
indefinitely without trial. The Law Lords declared that this was discriminatory
according to the European Convention on Human Rights since British terrorist
suspects were not being treated in the same way. The government accepted the ruling and the detainees were released.
However, soon after, the government introduced legislation into Parliament to monitor the whereabouts of these and other foreign terrorist suspects using control orders (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005). This shows that although a declaration of incompatibility can have significant moral influence, the executive’s ability to circumvent the judiciary is still great.
this shows how their are shortcuts to undermine the supreme courts authority.
for
The Supreme Court is the UK’s most senior court and final court of appeal.
In 2015, Shamima Begum, then aged 15, travelled to Syria with two other girls
so that she could join Islamic State. In 2019, the then home secretary, Sajid Javid,
removed her British citizenship on the grounds that she was a threat to national
security. In 2020, the Court of Appeal judged that Ms Begum be allowed to return
to the UK so that she could appeal the judgment. The Home Office responded that
if this was allowed it ‘would create significant national security risks’. When the case
went to the Supreme Court, the then lord president, Lord Reed, found in favour of
the home secretary. According to Lord Reed, the court of appeal was wrong when
it stated that ‘when an individual’s right to have a fair hearing…came into conflict
with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail’.
Instead, in a judgment remarkably like Lord Denning’s in the Hosenball case (1977),
he stated that the right to a fair hearing did ‘not trump all other considerations, such
as the safety of the public’.
this shows how the supreme court is the highest court of appeal, and how its decision are taken seroiusly by the legislative and parliment. shamima begum was not allowed a proper hearing.
against
however, no matter the fact that the suprme court is highest form of judicary and most powerfull court in teh country, parliment remains soverign, menaing that it cannot strike down a parliemnatry bill no matter what they say.
this is shown in the rwanda bill, a highly controversial case where illegal immigrants were planned to be sent to rwanda wich as of December 2023, Rwanda is listed as a least developed country by the UN. Rwanda is one of the world’s poorest countries and is still recovering from the 1994 genocide. the bill was further delayed in the house of commons and never passed.
instead of the supreme court striking down the bill, it sent back a long list of HRA violations, wich needed to be amended in order for the bill to pass. the amendments were so high in number that rishis sunak who was prime minister at teh time was rumoured to be passing it as an ‘emergency’ bill and bypassing the supreme court.
for
The Justices of the Supreme Court are the most senior judges in the UK and their interpretation of the meaning of the law is final.
for example, the judges have the power of statutory interpration.
Statutory interpretationwich focuses on identifying the meaning of words used by Parliament, taking into account the context and purpose. an exmaple of this would be r v allen in wich the jude ruled the defendantguilty of polygamy although he had not legally married a second wife, by interprating marriage as even a ceremony.
against.
- The Supreme Court cannot initiate cases. It only
determines cases that are brought to it.
this decreases how influental it is as it only takes on an average of 100-150, wheras the magistarte courts take an averga eof 5 million cases a year.
this argueebaly decreases its influence as it is not taking many court cases meaning the impact of thier judgement will not be influental across the uk ; only the higher elite circles. an exmaple og this would be
Jersey Choice Ltd (Appellant) v His Majesty’s Treasury : a case involving a buisness owner appealing agaianst the finance act 2012 wich removed vat relief, consequently causing him to lose more thena 15 million. this example shows how only high profile cases that dont affect the general population reach the supreme court, further undermining thier influence.
How effectively does Parliament hold the executive
to account?
In 1976, Lord Hailsham, a leading
Conservative lawyer and politician, even claimed that the executive had so much
power that it could be called an elective dictatorship.
This claim can be supported by the following arguments:
l Since Public Bill Committees always have a government majority and are
whipped, it is unusual for the opposition to be able to significantly amend
legislation at committee stage.
however It allows the selection of MPs with specialist expertise to sit and scrutinise bills. For example, Jess Phillips sat on the Domestic Abuse Bill committee and she has extensive experience of campaigning on this issue. ( party whips may choose experts )
A government with a large parliamentary majority should be able to rely on the
support of its MPs to pass the legislative programme it wishes.
On 19 January 1999, the Leader of the House of Commons, Margaret Beckett, introduced the House of Lords Bill into the House of Commons. The House of Commons passed the bill by a vote of 340 to 132 on 16 March.
however ,
However, not even a powerful government should take Parliament for granted.
In 1986, despite its 144-seat majority, the Thatcher government was defeated on
the second reading of the Shops Bill, which would have enabled shops to open on
Sunday, when 72 Conservative MPs voted against the bill. In 2021, 99 Conservative
MPs voted against Covid passes, forcing Boris Johnson to rely on Labour support
for the bill to pass the House of Commons. In 2022, Johnson was forced to resign as
prime minister when he lost the support of both his cabinet and the parliamentary
Conservative Party as a result of illegal Downing Street parties during lockdown.
l According to the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords should not attempt
to stop government legislation that was in the winning party’s manifesto, since
this would obstruct what the public had voted for.
According to the Salisbury Convention, since the House of Lords cannot claim democratic
legitimacy, it will not oppose legislation which was in the winning party’s manifesto. However,
when a government does not have a parliamentary majority, it is more difficult for it to claim that
its manifesto has been popularly endorsed by the public. In these circumstances it has been
claimed that the Salisbury Convention is in abeyance, providing the Lords with the opportunity to
oppose the manifesto commitments of the largest party in government
In 2017, Theresa May’s failure to secure
a parliamentary majority also encouraged the Lords to be more proactive and the government
suffered 15 defeats in the upper house over the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. For example, on one notable
occasion, in April 2018, the Lords voted by a majority of 123 to insert a clause in the European
Union (Withdrawal) Bill that the UK should negotiate to remain in the customs union after Brexit
However, the relationship between Parliament and the executive is not static. It changes
depending on circumstances. For example, a minority government or one with a
small parliamentary majority will find it much more difficult to pass its legislative
programme, especially if it cannot rely on the loyalty of its backbenchers. When this
is the case, both Houses of Parliament can become more assertive. Equally, if the
opposition is united around a strong leader who is widely expected to win the next
general election, then this can greatly undermine the confidence of the government.
The House of Commons
Examples of weak parliamentary influence and strong parlimentary influence
Examples of weak parliamentary influence
1979–87 Margaret Thatcher’s determined leadership of the Conservative Party
contrasted with divisions within Labour, which led to the party fracturing and
the foundation of the Social Democratic Party in 1981. This meant that the
Conservatives were facing a split opposition and in 1983, having won the Falklands
War the previous year, Thatcher increased her parliamentary majority to 144. In
these circumstances, neither Michael Foot (1980–83) nor Neil Kinnock (1983–
92) was able to effectively challenge her policies in the House of Commons.
1997–2001 In 1997 Tony Blair won a landslide general election, giving him
a House of Commons majority of 179 seats. The parliamentary party was
then almost totally united around Blair’s third way political philosophy and
having suffered their worst general election defeat since 1832 under the Duke
of Wellington, the Conservatives had only 165 MPs. Their ability to oppose
Blair was further undermined by Conservative divisions over the EU and the
ineffective leadership of William Hague (1997–2001).
Examples of strong parliamentary influence
1974–79 (Wilson and Callaghan) Although Labour leader Harold Wilson won
the October 1974 general election, he did so with a parliamentary majority of
just three. When James Callaghan took over as Labour leader and prime minister
in 1976, Labour’s majority disappeared because of election defeats and Callaghan
was forced to establish a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberal
Party from 1977 to 1978. When this ended, the government struggled on until it
was defeated in a vote of confidence by 310–311 votes, forcing a sudden general
election, which was won by Margaret Thatcher.
2017–19 (May) In 2017, Theresa May decided to call a snap general election to
try to win a larger parliamentary majority, which would make it easier for her
to pass the Brexit legislation she wanted. However, the Conservatives lost seats
and May became prime minister of a minority administration. She was forced
to establish a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist
Party. This meant the government had to try to pass its Brexit legislation without a
Conservative majority, which was made even more difficult by growing divisions
within the Conservative Party over Brexit and an increasingly self-confident
Labour opposition, which had increased its parliamentary representation.
Massive parliamentary defeats of May’s Brexit proposals in January and March
2019 further shifted the balance of power towards the House of Commons.
2019 (Johnson) When he became prime minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson
faced an even more uncooperative House of Commons than Theresa May had. His
Brexit proposals were even more unpopular with pro-European Conservatives
and he suffered the humiliation of Parliament seizing control of parliamentary
business and enacting the Benn Bill (4 September 2019) extending the Brexit
deadline if a deal was not achieved
In focus
Parliamentary debate
The significance of parliamentary debate in influencing how MPs vote should not be underestimated. In 2013, David
Cameron proposed military strikes on the Syrian government following its alleged use of chemical weapons. Both sides
deployed compelling arguments; however, the government failed to sufficiently prove its case and was defeated by 285–272 votes. Thirty Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government.
In what ways has the ability of house of commons to control
government increased in recent years?
The Liaison Committee consists of the heads of all the select committees and
regularly questions the prime minister. Since, unlike Prime Minister’s Questions,
the meeting takes place in a restrained, non-partisan atmosphere, it can put the
prime minister under more sustained objective scrutiny.
athough prime minisyers have attened the laison commitee ever tince tony balir attended the first one in 2002, after borish johnson postponing apearing before the cmmitte three times by october 2019, it became clear that the executive could postpone, or not appear entirely in front of the commitee at all.
l It has also been claimed that the executive’s authority has been reduced by
the convention that the House of Commons should now be consulted on the
commitment of British forces to military operations
Since 2003, when Tony Blair allowed a parliamentary vote on the justification
for war in Iraq, there has been the expectation that Parliament should authorise
military action. However, it is not a legal requirement, and in 2018 Theresa May
ignored it to exercise the royal prerogative when the RAF joined US/French
air strikes on Syrian government chemical weapons installations. In a sudden
emergency the prime minister might also claim justification for not seeking
parliamentary approval for immediate military deployments, while the use of
the nuclear deterrent is at the prime minister’s discretion.
and by the Fixed-term
Parliaments Act 2011, which stopped the prime minister requesting a dissolution
of Parliament and a general election at their convenience.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 still allowed the prime minister to call
a general election, as Theresa May did in 2017, if two-thirds of MPs agreed.
Having failed three times in 2019 to win a sufficient parliamentary majority
for an early election, the Johnson government then introduced legislation to
repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Consequently, the right of the prime
minister to decide the date of a general election was restored in the Dissolution
and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
In what ways has the ability of house of lords to control
government increased in recent years?
Since the removal of most of the hereditary peers and their replacement with life
peers, the House of Lords can claim greater professional expertise and so has become
much more self-confident in opposing government legislation. It has also lost its in-
built Conservative majority and become more balanced in its composition.
Although the powers of the House of Lords have not changed, the peers’ willingness to
use them has. For example, from 1999 to 2010 the Labour government suffered more
than 450 defeats in the House of Lords, including the latter’s successful opposition
to Gordon Brown’s attempt to increase detention of terrorist suspects to 42 days.
In 2015, the Lords provoked even more controversy when it opposed attempts by
the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, to cut tax credits. Although this
concerned financial legislation and so, according to the Parliament Act 1911, the
Lords should not have opposed the government, the Lords claimed that it could vote
against the measure as it had been introduced through secondary legislation. In the
same manner, the Lords was highly proactive (although ultimately unsuccessful) in
opposing the EU (Withdrawal) Bills introduced by the May and Johnson governments.
The implementation of the four freedoms means that
the EU is now the biggest single market in the world,
providing EU citizens with the right to live, work or
study in any member state.
with a GDP of 13 trillion euros. It’s also the world’s largest exporter of manufactured goods and services, and the biggest import market for more than 100 countries.
however,
The austerity programmes demanded by the European
Commission and European Central Bank in response
to the euro crisis have undermined support for the
EU in south European countries such as Greece, wich have a signifact amount of debt.
Greece began austerity measures in 2010 in response to the global financial crisis of 2008. The measures were part of a series of bailouts from the EU and IMF, which totaled €289 billion over three year
political union
—————–
bigger amount of vountrys = stringer union?
By 2022 the EU had expanded from 6 members to
27 members. Turkey, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and
Montenegro have all applied to join
more members meaning more european unity, that could help achieve european prosperity.
On 24 February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine, providing the European Union with its greatest ever geo-strategic challenge. In response the EU imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia and proved much more united than when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. However,
consensus was more difficult on a complete ban on Russian oil and gas, with Hungary vetoing enhanced sanctions and refusing to allow military equipment for Ukraine to cross its borders.
this shows that althought the european union may have more members than before, it may be more difficult to control every single member states.
monetary union
protection of human rights
In 2000, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was proclaimed
and became legally binding on all member states when they ratified the Lisbon
Treaty in 2009. The human rights that the charter guarantees significantly overlap
with the European Convention on Human Rights. The main difference is that the
charter applies only to areas connected with EU law and is applied through the
European Court of Justice.
however
Investigations of rights violations at EU borders remain ineffective
according to the european union agency for fundamental rights.
Failure to rescue and assist migrants in distress, maltreatment, and abuse. These are some of the serious and life-threatening human rights violations at the EU’s land and sea borders that are not properly investigated. acorrding to the 2024 report.
main institutions of the European Union
European Commission
(supranational)
The European Commission is the government (executive) of the EU. Each member state
sends a commissioner, who represents the interests of the EU rather than their own state,
to its headquarters in Brussels. The Commission is responsible for developing EU policy
and ensuring that it is carried through
Council of the European
Union (intergovernmental/
supranational)
This is one of the legislative bodies of the EU. Here relevant government ministers decide
whether to accept legislative proposals from the Commission. Some decisions require
unanimity, although increasingly decisions are reached by qualified majority voting
European Council
(intergovernmental)
The European Council convenes four times a year when the leaders of the EU and their
foreign ministers meet. The Council develops EU foreign policy and makes strategic
decisions concerning the future of the EU. According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European
Council ‘shall provide the union with the necessary impetus for its development’
European Parliament
(supranational)
The European Parliament is the EU’s only directly elected body. It sits in both Brussels and
Strasbourg and shares legislative and budgetary control with the Council of the European Union
The European Commission is accountable to Parliament and Parliament elects the
President of the Commission
European Central
Bank (supranational)
Based in Frankfurt, the European Central Bank implements EU economic policy and sets a
common interest rate for the members of the eurozone
European Court of Justice
(supranational)
The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg and ensures that European law is
applied equally and interpreted in the same way in all member states
