Define and analyse the principal amendments proposed by the new constitution for the EU.
Define and analyse the principal amendments proposed by the new constitution for the EU The European Convention on the Future of Europe was created in Laeken, on 14 an 15 December 2001. Its goal was to draw up proposals on three subjects: "how to bring citizens closer to the European design and European Institutions; how to organise politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union; and how to develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new world order" (The European Convention, 2003). After a 17 month work period, the European Convention, chaired by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has come up with a draft treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in Thessaloniki on 20 June 2003. The Intergovernmental conference, currently meeting in Naples, has to finalise the text before the 12 and 13 December summit in Brussels where heads of state are meant to reach a final agreement. In this essay we will introduce the principal amendments this draft proposes and analyse the issues they raise. The main proposals concern the qualified majority voting system, the composition of the European Commission, the creation of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, citizenship and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Qualified majority voting Article 24 states that "majority shall consist of the majority of
What are conventions?
What are conventions? Conventions are rules of practice applicable to the three organs of the government. It is based on consent and not on legal obligation. Conventions are regularly observed practices with no legal basis and are not enforceable in courts. Whilst the courts do not legally enforced convention, they do recognize conventions and their applications. Conventions form rules of political behaviour which are necessary for the smooth running of the Constitution. They facilitate evolution and change within the Constitution while the legal form remains unchanged.They also help to remove certain aspects of the working of the constitution from the jurisdiction of the courts and help to ensure democratic process. Advantages: Codification would clarify certain conventional rules that are vague and undefined. It is unsatisfactory that major rules of the constitution remain unclear. For example if the Queen were to dismiss the Prime Minister under certain circumstances this would be controversial because of the uncertainty surrounding the Queen's power of dismissal. This can be avoided if the circumstances in which the Queen may do these things are set out clearly in legal written form. Breach of convention has resulted in its successful codification. The effect of this has been to provide the rule with legal status. Doesn't this have a bad effect on the politician?
Discussion on The History, Evolution and Functioning of British Constitution
Name: Hubert Zhang Subject: Politics Assignment Number: 1 Discussion on The History, Evolution and Functioning of British Constitution As the definition presents, British constitution entrusts the government powers and privileges on operation and defines the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Unlike many other countries, Britain's elusive constitution emphasizes that it is uncodified. For centuries, British constitution has never been freed of criticisms and debates. Here a critically discussed history, evolution and functioning of constitution are presented below. * Uncodified Constitution A significant characteristic of British constitution is its uncodified form. Although most laws and statues are presented in written documents, here uncodified refers to that 'no single document available is entitled as 'The Constitution' (John Kingdom (1991) 'The Constitution' Government and Politics in Britain, 58-59), which should involve all relevant aspects of constitution. The causation of its uncodified form derives from Britain's relatively tranquil history-there was not a prominent revolution during which a new class emerged striving for a fresh system on the abolition of the old one, such as the French Great Revolution. Five principle sources of constitution are classified as royal prerogative, statute, common law, convention and authoritative opinion. As Britain
Admin Law
Q2a An avenue open to Taluluans for Air Safety (TAS) is internal review. This involves a more senior officer looking at the decision. TAS can apply for internal review by writing to the minister. TAS is also able to seek review of the situation to the ombudsman1 . S(6)(b)(ii)2 will pose a problem for TAS in obtaining a reciew. The section specifies that ombudsman can refuse to investigate if the complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint. Tas's interest is to improve public interest, they have no other interest that will be beneficial to themself. The ombudsman is unlikely to view this interest as sufficient enough to investigate. TAS may also apply to the AAT, however before they can do so they must have standing. The mere fact that TAS consists of injured members is not enough to give it standing , the organisation must have an interest that is greater the ordinary members of the public.3 TAS's main object is to promote air safety, it will give it a right to encourage air lines and ASA in improving their airline safety, but it will not entitle them to questioning the actions of ASA. This means that its interest will not be greater than the ordinary person and will not have standing in regards to challenging the decision of ASA to the AAT. TAS may seek rely on the broader terms of S(27)(2)4 to have standing in the AAT. The
Why and how the policing of public protest has changed in the last 25 years
Why and how the policing of public protest has changed in the last 25 years Historically political protests, demonstrations and riots were quite common in Britain. What was not common however, was a structured public service department equipped to deal with such events. This essay will purport to show how and why policing of public protest has changed in the past 25 years. Eighteenth century Britain experienced some horrendous rioting, i.e. the St George's Field Massacre 1768[1], the Gordon Riots 1780[2] and the Peterloo Massacre in 1819[3], is this a mirror image of things to come. One of the major functions of the police has always been the control of public order, i.e. demonstrations, sports grounds, festivals and striking pickets. "The duty of a police officer....includes the preservation of the peace, or rather the prevention of a breach of the peace..."[4] It is also understood that the police have certain obligations in ensuring the physical safety of people when faced with large gatherings. However, three elements cause major problems for the police when faced with any large gathering, (i) freedom of public expression, (ii) police obligation to the public safety of the participants and (iii) their obligation to the protection of the rights of others). It was not until the late 1800's and early 1900's that British society started to settle down. The emergence
The Constitution of The United States of America.
The Constitution of The United States of America In 1775 a war had broken out between the 13 colonies and Britain, a war for Independence that lasted for a long and brutal six years. While the war continued, the colonies that are now referred to as the United States of America, drafted a compact that bound them together as a nation. The compact designated the "Articles of Confederation, and Perpetual Union," which was adopted by a Congress of the states in 1777 and was formally signed in July of 1778. The articles became binding when they were ratified by the thirteenth state, Maryland, in March of 1781. The Articles of Confederation devised a loose association of the states, and also set up a federal government that had a limited amount of power. In matters that were crucial to the United States of America, including situations that called for defense, public finance, and trade, the Federal Government must consider State Legislatures. Within a short time after the Articles were put into effect, it became apparent that the Confederation brought about many weaknesses. Politically, as well as economically the "new nation" was close to anarchy. George Washington, who was the first President of the United States of America in 1789, stated that merely "a rope of sand" united the 13 states Under the Articles of Confederation; there was no plan for an executive branch to
Smoking is not a Right
SMOKING IS NOT A RIGHT! by Semih Sönmez Would you take drugs if it wasn't banned? What are the criterias to ban things? If something is banned it is mostly because it intervenes other people's rights and the word "right" refers to the basic human rights. Do you think living in a healthy area is one of them? So what about smoking? When smokers were asked if they would accept a ban for smoking, most of them said "Yes". 18 years old smoker Ali Sanli Kucuk mentioned ; "It is like a doctor who says that we have only 3 months to live if we don't give up smoking. We need someone or something to force us stop smoking. It would be nice." However, nearly none of them think that it may be possible to ban smoking in Turkey right now. Maybe this idea of "impossibility" is their reason to continue smoking because this is human nature to behave as if bad things doesn't happen to him/her. Is it normal to behave according to our instincts like our anchestors did in the prehistorical ages? Experts say the results of the surveys, which are conducted to learn what smokers think about a "smoking ban", may be misleading because the smokers who say "Not all the smokers will accept the ban." may be one of those opposing smokers in fact. They may be ashamed to confess that they are opposed to a "smoking ban". According to experts another issue to consider is the facilities which should be
Australia's need to change its constitution.
Australia does need to change its constitution. The change need not be a complete over-hall of the constitution, however, change none the less. Australia needs to have an Australian as head of state. Conventions and the reserved powers of the head of state are ambiguous and need to be codified. Australia needs a Bill of Rights. The present structure of our system of government, a responsible government in a federalist system, does not need to be changed, just certain elements within it. Head of State and Popular Sovereignty Australia needs a head of state that is Australian. Currently the Queen of England is the head of state in Australia. The Australia Act of 1986 marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the British Parliament and allowed the ultimate sovereignty to reside in the hands of the Australian people.1 However, today, 2002-09-24, we still have the Queen of England as our official head of state. Justice Dawson remarked that, "the legal foundation of the Australian Constitution is an exercise of sovereign power by the Imperial Parliament".2 Justice Dawson continued on to say, "The continuing legal authority of our constitution derives from its original enactment at Westminster and subsequent retention by those empowered to amend it, which includes the Australian electors. But the latter derived their legal authority from the former".3 If the Queen of England is
"The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts."
"The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts." The question here is, do we agree with the view that the Royal Prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts, and whether it remains a significant source of constitutional law. In addressing this view, the first point to consider is the definitional controversy of the term, 'royal prerogative' and its origin, then consider its nature, modern position and its significance within the UK Constitution, and finally, whether or not the royal prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts. Under the UK Constitution, all actions of government are undertaken in the name of the Crown. Historically, the term, 'royal prerogative' has been applied to those special rights and privileges, which the King had as a feudal lord. There are two schools of thought on the definitional controversy of the term. Blackstone advanced the first 'narrow' or 'restrictive' interpretation. Blackstone defines the prerogative in his Commentaries1 as: .....that special pre-eminence which the King hath over and above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the common law, in right of his regal dignity. And hence it follows, that it must be in its nature singular and eccentrical ; that it can only be applied to those rights and capacities which the King enjoys
A Parliament with a strong party system, such as that of the UK, is inherently flawed as a means of holding Government accountable Discuss
"A Parliament with a strong party system, such as that of the UK, is inherently flawed as a means of holding Government accountable" Discuss Parliament began as a court of advisors to the King. It later developed into a more formal body with representatives from different regions and its function moved gradually towards the control of the King's powers. Soon the power of the Crown was 'controlled' so heavily that the power to legislate began to move to Parliament. Since then, Parliament's role has retracted, and we are left with a Parliament intended to ensure that the early Monarch's replacement, Government, is kept in check. In this capacity it has two main roles, to ensure firstly that Government is trying to enforce good and proper policies, by means of effective scrutiny of legislation, and secondly to maintain good and proper implementation of these policies. In this essay I will discuss these two roles of Parliament, and investigate whether, considering the nature of the Assembly today, they are still performed effectively. Parliament is composed of three parts; the Monarch, House of Lords, House of Commons. Each has their own role in the maintenance of a fair government, the importance of which increases respectively. The Queen's role today is minimal, although, the right to deny an act royal assent is reserved for the queen's pleasure; assent has not been withheld
![Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/888953/listing/888953_1.jpg)