"'A troublesome partner.' Using examples, to what extent would you say this comment accurately describes the United Kingdom's membership of the EU since 1973"
"'A troublesome partner.' Using examples, to what extent would you say this comment accurately describes the United Kingdom's membership of the EU since 1973" Since the mid-1980s, the transfer of state powers to a EU level and reforms affecting the distribution of power in EU policy have challenged the sovereignty of member states. Since the United Kingdom joined the European Union through the Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, it has been seen as the most awkward partner in the 'club' and has been a force for disintegration within it.1 This was particularly apparent during Margaret Thatcher's premiership.1 This view however, neglects an appreciation of the importance of accomodationism within the UK approach to EU developments. The UK/EU relationship from 1945-present will be profiled in the contrasting terms of uncooperativeness then accomodationism with an attempt at explaining the reasoning for the actions of the 'troublesome partner.'1 Plate 1: Thatcher in 1975 in pro-European campaign Source 2 At the time of Britain's accession in 1973, EU membership was seen as essential for the reversal of economic decline. Since then, UK governments have encouraged the EU to develop into a large free trade area, but have sought to limit EU competences and revenues in attempts to ensure that sovereignty is not diminished and that the UK governmental system, as a whole,
"The House of Commons is a highly effective parliamentary chamber" to what extent do you agree with this view? (40)
________________ "The House of Commons is a highly effective parliamentary chamber" to what extent do you agree with this view? (40) ________________ The House of Commons is without a doubt the dominant chamber within Parliament , with huge influence and supreme power in UK politics. It consists of 650 elected MPs, each one representing the interests and concerns of a particular region of the country, known as a constituency. It has three very important main functions; legislation, scrutiny and representation, but it is often questioned how effectively it carries out these functions. I do agree that it is a highly effective parliamentary chamber, but also think there is evidence for this view to be contradicted. Parliament is Britain's Legislature, where legislation, the process of passing new laws, takes place. It is mainly carried out in the House of Commons and there are many different types of it, with the two most important being; government bills and private members bills. For a bill to become law is must pass through a number of parliamentary stages, which involves a lot of close reading, amending and debating in both the parliamentary chambers, however the House of Commons has far more legislative power, as the Lords can only suggest amendments or delay bills from becoming law (which the House of Commons can actually override anyway). It can be said the Commons
Has the creation of the Single European Market been a success?
Has the creation of the Single European Market been a success? The Single Market was contemplated in the Rome Treaty. It consisted of an eight-year programme to be completed between 1985 and 1992 and one of the main objectives was to eliminate barriers that existed to trade in the then European Community. Its completion was considered to be one of the most ambitious targets and one of the most enduring successes.1 The Single European Act provided the legal framework that made the attainment of the target of a Single European Market by 1992 a realist possibility, through a process of harmonisation for existing legislation. The mobility of capital, labour and goods and services became reality in simultaneous with the establishment of a new European trading block in which competition between countries and companies has increased. The key objectives of the Community are in the Rome Treaty. In this essay I will analyse whether or not the Single European Market has been a success, defining success as 'a favourable accomplishment'. The original plans for a Common Market as known in the Treaty of Rome, which emphasized the creation of a Common Market and Customs Union between the member states, meant the removal of tariffs and other obstacles to trade between the original Six and, as expressed through the Common External Tariff (CET), the adoption of a Common Trade Policy
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss.
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss A Constitution is a set of rules and principles by which a state is governed and how power is distributed. It defines the power between government and the governed, between different section of government and between central and local government. The constitution is the centre and foundation of any democratic society. Hence, it is vitally important. The US has a written codified constitution that means, is all contained in one document, to which, amendments have been and can be made. The US constitution was written to last and thus, it is very difficult to alter. It requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, Presidential approval and three quarters approval of the state legislatures. When the constitution was set up it had the idea of Federalism at its heart. This was to determine the power of the state with power of the national government. The idea was to leave the states with as much power as possible but remove enough to create a national government. This is why three quarters of the state legislatures must agree with any amendments. There have been only 27 amendments, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights, which, guarantee an individuals political and civil liberties. The US constitution is very concerned with the separation of
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great
Analyse the similarities and differences between Classical and Modern Liberalism
Analyse the similarities and differences between Classical and Modern Liberalism Typically Liberalism can be categorised into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterised by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept. Liberalism is an ideology and due to the changing views of historical persons, who have each viewed themselves to be Liberals, is difficult to define precisely. There are five agreed defining tenants of Liberalism. The most important of these, percolating through the ideology, is the 'Importance of the Individual', and closely interlinked with this is 'Freedom', which leads on to the concept of 'Individual Freedom or liberty'. Liberals believe that humankind is a rational species, and thus 'Reason' is a third tenant. Furthermore Liberalism advocates that the principle of 'Justice' and Toleration' are fundamental in the well being of society and each of these aspects relates directly back to the quintessential first tenant. Liberalism, according to Habermas "emphasises individual freedom
Is the European Union a State?
Is the European Union a
‘The main democratic deficit in the European Union is psychological, not institutional.’ Discuss.
'The main democratic deficit in the European Union is psychological, not institutional.' Discuss. The term 'democratic deficit' refers to the creation and development of the EU without the direct involvement of the citizens. This is a term spawned from the Western understanding of democracy and legitimacy, concepts that the EU is said to infringe. Democracy and legitimacy are contentious concepts themselves. Democracy is, according to Brigid Laffin (1999) 'a set of ideals about the exercise of political authority'. In Western society representative democracy is predominant. People are able to choose between different parties at elections, which compete on a near or equal basis, to form the next Government. This Government will govern in accordance with the people's wishes, remaining accountable to an elected assembly. The European Union is said to lack these features of choice, competition, elections and accountability which gives rise to the issue of a 'democratic deficit.' Legitimacy is defined simply as the right to govern. Western Governments are installed by means of elections, indicating public acceptance of their presence and a representation of their will. Dogan (1992) offered the following definition 'people hold the belief, that ... institutions are appropriate or morally proper'. The EU however, as I will explain later is indirectly elected and does not conform
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy?
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy? [50] The 'first past the post' electoral system is a simple majority system whereby the country is divided into single member constituencies and voters select a single candidate who only requires a simple plurality of votes to win the election. It is extremely difficult to define a modern democracy, but the core ideas would be that it allows the people to govern (in most cases through elected officials) and fair and equal representation for all. Thus, for the FPTP system to be justified it must meet this criteria, and whilst it does usually fulfil it's role of creating strong, single party government it unquestionably fails in encouraging participation and providing equal representation and therefore it is hard to justify. One of the main reasons why it can be seen as justified is the fact that it provides strong and single party government. The United Kingdom has always employed a first past the post system and for this reason there has only been six coalition governments in its history and only two since 1940. These consistently single party governments for many have been vital in allowing laws to be passed and that with a coalition government, very little would be able to passed. The theoretical argument is that single party government leads to strong government and this is what
Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?
Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and, as such if it decides which laws are constitutional or not. This means it must have some political element since it is so to speak making law rather than just ruling on it (such as in Roe Vs Wade 1973). This however is not necessarily a negative thing.
