why did the UK leave the EU
four reasons
- opposition to free movement which undermined sovereignity over immigration policy
- loss of sovereignity more widley e.g. over agriculture and fishing policy
- belief that the EU was becoming ever more federal in ambitions - especially after the establishing of a constitution in 2004 treaty
- net contribution to budget
impacts of leaving the EU (UK)
3 impacts
- undermined integrity of the UK - 62% in Scotland and 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. the SNP pushed for another independence referendum in the hopes of re-joining the EU
- problems over checks on goods between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - now done in Irish sea to prevent IRA reviving if border guards reestablished.
- encouraged Labour to commit to rebalancing of power in the UK to maintain union involving power being devolved from Westminster and the HOL being replaced by an elected Assembly of Regions and Nations. - dropped as a manifesto commitment by 2024
impacts of leaving the EU (external)
two impacts
- the four freedoms (free flow of goods, services, capital and persons) no longer apply to the UK. EU has no external sovereignity over the UK so the UK can negotiate its own trade deals.
- conflict with EU members over territorial issues: UK government sent warships to Jersey when French fishing boats threatened to blockade over post-withdrawl disputed fishing rights. UK sovereignity over Gibraltar has become contentious, since the UK and Spain no longer share EU membership
other impacts of the UK leaving the EU
three impacts
- full restoration of parliamentary sovereignity
- raised significant constitutional complications and exposed unresolved tensions within the UK democracy. Johnson removed the whip from 21 pro-EU Conservatives. only 4 of them returned to parliament in 2019 and consequently the Conservative Party is fully eurosceptics leaving pro-EU tories homeless.
- has allowed the executive to increase its authority - clashes taken to court in Gina Miller cases and the devolved powers claim the westminster government has retained repatriated powers over things like agriculture rather than passing them on.
circumstances that favour executive power
four conditions
- the government enjoys a very large single majority in the House of Commons
- the government is united around a dominant ideology
- the opposition is fragmented or weak
- the government is led by a dominant leader
- securing a clear mandate for manifesto policies
- united cabinet
- having lots of new MPs who rely on the help and support of the whips
- the ‘coat tails effect’ - leader helps others to win seats
- lots of uncontroversial issues
circumstances that favour parliamentary power
eight conditions
- the government has no majority or a very small majority
- the governing party is split on issues
- the government faces a strong united parliamentary opposition
- the leader of the governing party has lost popularity and parliamentary authority or seen as a liability by their party
- if the cabinet is divided
- if the issues addressed are controversial
- if a leader or executive has failed to obtain a clear mandate in an election
- if parliament is mainly filled with experienced and well established MPs
elected dictatorship
when there is little parliament can do to thwart the will of the executive or counteract its power as it is usually holds a large a majority.
what is the natural conflict between parliament and the executive
whenever parliament exercises its right to sovereignty, it is threatening the democratic legitimacy of the government
HOWEVER most of the time parliament won’t have to exercise its sovereignty as long as the executive is working within its mandate, making the sovereignty of parliament effectively the sovereignty of the elected government
3 limits on the powers of the Lords
- the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949
- the Salisbury Convention
the Parliament Act 1911
prevented the lords having any control over the government’s financial arrangements (spending and tax). also stated if a law is passed in two consecutive years in the commons, the lords can’t block it
the Parliament Act 1949
the delaying power of the lords as specified in the 1911 act was reduced to one year
the Salisbury Convention
developed in the 40’s, the lords can’t block any piece of legislation that was contained in a winning government’s last election manifesto. thus the unelected lords can’t thwart the will of the elected commons and government
controls on the executive
7 controls
- if the government lacks an electoral mandate for a policy, the commons may exercise a veto unless the government can persuade the majority to support it
- parliament in both houses may ammend legislation to change its character and to protect certain minorities
- calls government to account through regular question times and th work of select committees
- votes of no confidence in very extreme circumstances
- backbench MPs may express their concerns over proposed legislation through the whip’s office and maybe convince the government to change course without a public division
- the restrictions are only conventions so MPs may rebel against the government and vote against it and Lords may defy the salisbury convention
- if there was enough vocal opposition, the government may be pressured into withdrawing a contentious proposal rather than risking a parliamentary defeat.
procedural devices the executive can use to persuade or pressure parliament to meet its demands
3 devices
- patronage - gives them power over the MPs as they have control over all appointments to government
- party whips - exercise control in the way they organise the timetables and allocate offices and other administrative tasks to help the party’s MP and in extreme circumstances the obstructive MP may be suspended from their party. also remind MPs about prime ministerial patronage and party loyalty
- the national platform- PM can speak directly to the public and may use this platform to put popular pressure on MPs by gaining support for their position and against parliament’s
evidence powers are shifting to parliament in recent years
five pieces of evidence
- it’s achieving considerable influence over foreign and military policy, even voting against some military interventions
- select committes are increasingly influential and have come more under backbench control
- the Liason Committee is increasingly willing to call the PM to account
- between 2010-19 there was no large or decisive government majority
- the lords have become increasingly proactive and obstructive
evidence powers remain with the executive recently
five pieces of evidence
- in 2019 and 2024 there were large and decisive majorities
- the government still relies on a large ‘payroll vote’ where all ministers numbering over 100 are bound by CCR
- gov still controls the legislative programme and the public bill committes that propose ammendments
- prime ministerial patronage still creates loyalty amonst the government’s MPs
- government still has a huge advantage in resources (media profile, advice and research) over MPs
how has the balance of power between the executive and parliament changed recently
two ways
- increasing prominence of televison and social media that tends to focus on leader and senior ministers rather than the institution of parliament, giving them greater status in the public’s mind
- constitutional reforms are more deliberate changes
constitutional changes to the balance of power
6 changes
- **reduction of hereditary peers in 1999 to 92 and current plans for the Labour government to remove the rest **- ensured no party has overall control and so the lords are more willing to defy the executive and insert itself more in checking it.
- the creation of the Backbench Business Committee - allowed ordinary MPs to control more parliamentary time away from government controls e.g. holding debates and introducing PMBs that the government may not wish to support
- election of select committee chairs - secret ballot introduced to reduce the ability of whips to influence the chairs. the additional salary they now recieve attracts a hgiher standard of MP who see it as an alternative career to one in government
- election of members of select committees - votes done by party and reduces the inflation of the whips
- growing power of the Liason Committee - set up in 1980 and since 2002 by convention the PM appears before the committee twice a year
- the fixed terms parliaments act 2011-2022 - removed one of the PMs prerogative powers - had to get 2/3 support for a general election. but it’s repealled now
things that undermine parliament’s power
four things
- lords still can’t veto legislation
- select committees still have a majority of government MPs and have no power to enforce their decisions. PM can cancel meetings with the liason committee
- the backbench business committee typically only controls 23 days a year. bills and debates only have a meaningful role if they gain the support of government
- the fixed terms parliaments act has granted an early election both times it was enacted. now repealled in 2022
these suggest changes are just marginal
when was the liason committee established and what effect did this have on the impact of select committees
established in 2010 and made select committees stronger
growing professionalism of MPs
- more middle class in their backgrounds (less trade union nurtured labour MPs)
- ‘professional politicians’, don’t have a background in another field beforehand really since Thatcher
- could have led to a decline in public trust as they aren’t relateable
- potentially more independent minded (classist) or less lol
