# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit explained: Boris Johnson's new trade deal with the EU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bayeux Tapestry - Seven Ages of Britain - BBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Conservative 1935 to 1937

Conservative 1924 to 1929

Conservative 1923 to 1924

Conservative 1895 to 1902

Conservative 1886 to 1892

Conservative 1885 to 1886

Liberal 1892 to 1894

Liberal 1886 to 1886

Liberal 1880 to 1885

Liberal 1868 to 1874

Tory and Whig 1866 to 1868

Tory and Whig 1858 to 1859

Tory and Whig 1852 to 1852

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the Westminster government's consent.

What has the Supreme Court said?

The court's president, Lord Reed, said the laws that created the Scottish Parliament in 1999 meant it did not have the power to legislate on areas of the constitution - including the union between Scotland and England.

The court rejected the Scottish government's argument that any referendum would be "advisory", and would have no legal effect.

Hasn't Scotland already had an independence referendum?

Yes, in September 2014, when Scottish voters were given the choice of staying in the UK or becoming an independent country.

They backed staying the UK by 55% to 45%.

Why is independence back in the spotlight?

In truth, it has never really gone away.

Independence supporters argued that Scotland should take its future into its own hands, and no longer be tied to the UK and its Conservative government.

Since then Ms Sturgeon has made repeated attempts to push for another vote but there has been no agreement with the UK government.

The SNP currently has a pro-independence majority in the devolved parliament alongside the Scottish Greens. It argues that its electoral success - coupled with the Brexit vote - mean it has a "cast-iron mandate" to hold another referendum.

This was put in place ahead of the 2014 referendum. Many - but not all - experts believe such a mechanism would be needed again to ensure any future vote is legal.

Will indyref2 happen?

The UK government argues that the 2014 referendum was, in Ms Sturgeon's own words at the time, a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

The UK government has accused the SNP of failing to give clear answers to key questions on issues such as currency and pensions in an independent Scotland. It also warns that any attempt by Scotland to rejoin the EU would lead to a hard border between the two countries.

Ministers also say Ms Sturgeon and her government should be focusing on recovery from the Covid pandemic and improving public services like health and education.

They argue that an independent Scotland could be "wealthier, happier and fairer", and that people should have the right to choose how they are governed.

So what is Ms Sturgeon's plan now?

The first minister says she "stands ready" to reach an agreement with the UK government on a referendum, but expects the UK government will continue with its "democracy denial".

"The SNP is not abandoning the referendum route. Westminster is blocking it," she said.

Ms Sturgeon's intention is to make the next UK election a "de facto referendum", with the SNP standing on the single issue of independence.

The first minister wants the SNP to hold a special party conference next year to agree the details of this plan.

In the meantime, she said the party would launch a major campaign "in defence of Scottish democracy".

Would Scots vote for independence?

Polling expert Prof Sir John Curtice says the last half dozen polls have - on average - put support for independence at 49%, with 51% against, once "don't know" votes are excluded.

This suggests that the country hasn't seen the big surge in support for independence that Ms Sturgeon hoped for in the wake of Brexit, the Covid pandemic and Boris Johnson becoming prime minister.

But with such a slender lead in the polls, the pro-UK side also cannot be confident of victory, and will be mindful of how support for independence increased before the last referendum.

However, polling has also suggested that there are fewer undecided voters now than there were at the start of the last referendum campaign, so it may be harder for either side to win people over.

Dr Emily Gray, head of polling at Ipsos Scotland, said it was clear that the issue of Scottish independence was not going away.

She said pro-independence parties would see the Supreme Court ruling as "another unfair block in the way of Scottish democracy".

But she added that Nicola Sturgeon would also face questions about making the next general election a single issue vote on independence:

"When we've polled on this recently, the only route that a clear majority sees as legitimate is a referendum that both the Scottish government and the UK have agreed to."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scottish independence: Will there be a second referendum?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scottish government has lost its case in the Supreme Court - so what happens now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has formally requested powers from Westminster to hold a second independence referendum. What is the process for doing this, and what might happen next?

What is a section 30 order?

Ms Sturgeon wants Scotland to have another vote on independence in 2020 - and she wants the UK government to agree to transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament that would allow this to happen.

So will the UK government grant a section 30 this time?

With Boris Johnson back in Downing Street with a big majority after the general election, the answer appears to be no.

The Conservatives campaigned in Scotland on a platform of opposition to independence, and included a "cast-iron guarantee" in their manifesto that any request for a referendum would be rejected.

So will Mr Johnson change his mind? Might he have a "bring it on" moment, and try to continue his winning run in the same way David Cameron attempted to?

It seems unlikely, for now, given the PM has a lot on his plate fulfilling his other big election pledge - to "get Brexit done".

Could a referendum be held without a deal?

This is a question which has caused considerable debate between legal scholars, but has never actually been tested in court.

There is an argument that Holyrood could potentially legislate for the holding of a referendum - but not actually implement the result, because the power to modify the Acts of Union is reserved to Westminster.

In any case, Ms Sturgeon is clear she has no intention of going ahead without a section 30 order.

On the practical side, supporters of the union might well boycott any unauthorised referendum, casting doubt on the result.

So one way or another, a transfer of powers is likely to be needed.

How could the deadlock be broken?

Ms Sturgeon has been tight-lipped about this hypothetical question, saying only that the UK government position is unsustainable and that Mr Johnson will ultimately have to agree to a referendum.

The first minister hasn't ruled out going to court, something various SNP figures are feeling buoyant about following successful Supreme Court challenges on Brexit and the prorogation of parliament.

But it is a risky route, given it would take time and has no guarantee of success.

It's also unclear what point of law would be challenged, given judges would refuse to rule on a political dispute.

One approach could be to pass a specific bill for indyref2 in the Scottish Parliament, effectively tempting UK law officers into challenging it. The end result would be the courts ruling on whether Holyrood is competent to legislate for a referendum or not.

Another possibility would be to use the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 as leverage, by campaigning specifically on a platform of indyref2 and winning a fresh mandate from the electorate to increase the pressure on the UK government to agree to a section 30.

Before this month's general election came along, many suspected that was the long-term plan.

But this strategy would hold risks too, as the proportional representation system used to elect MSPs makes it difficult for any party to win a majority - although the SNP did manage to do so in 2011.

Even counting on the backing of the pro-independence Greens, could the SNP be confident of a big enough win in the election, having been in power for 14 years?

One final point is that Mr Johnson's continued refusal to allow a referendum might actually boost the independence campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scottish independence: What is a section 30 order?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has formally requested powers from Westminster to hold a second independence referendum. What is the process for doing this, and what might happen next? What is a section 30 order?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ROYAL:  Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II (1953)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A year since Brexit: How bad are the UK's labour shortages now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Queen steals the show at Platinum Jubilee concert with Paddington Bear | 9 News Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A thematic index

About-Britain.com - a guide : tourism, life, culture, institutions

British institutions and society

The main British Institutions - simply explained:

The English language :

For information of the English language, its history, grammar and other aspects, visit our partner Linguapress.com

About-Britain.com - British area studies

How does Britain function?

How is public life organised?

How are things done differently in Britain, compared to other countries? And why?

How strong are traditions?

How does the British economy work?

The answers to these and other related questions form the basis of what is known, for want of a better term, as "British studies", or "British area studies", a cross-cultural discipline that takes students beyond the simple study of a language, to a study of the country or countries - or the civilisation and culture - that has given birth to that language.
As a field of academic research and study, "area studies" is a recent concept. Until the 1980s, few universities offered transdisciplinary courses. Studying "English" or "Anglais" or "Anglistik" or "Filología inglés" meant studying literature and sometimes a bit of linguistics. Graduates knew about Shakespeare and Dickens, but generally knew very little about the workings of modern Britain or the USA, their institutions, their politics, their geography, their social issues. British politics were the reserve of politics departments, British geography was for geographers, not for students of English.... and so on.
Things are different today. In universities and colleges worldwide, and often against strong resistance from the proponents of traditional literature based courses, area studies have replaced literary studies as the backbone of language degrees. They are more relevent to today's globalized world where a good knowledge of Shakespeare, while being an admirable cultural asset, is usually of little help when applying for a job.
Area studies are thus a transdisciplinary field of study; they reach into six main academic disciplines - history, geography, politics, sociology, linguistics and economics - and may reach into others too; art, music, religion, and more. To properly understand a nation, its institutions, its people, and its language, it is necessary to reach into all these areas.

Copyright : Website and texts © About-Britain.com 2009-2022 except where otherwise indicated

Picture top of page: The state opening of Parliament,

Debate in the House of Commons - showing Ed Miliband, former leader of the Labour party (the Opposition)

Copyright : Website and texts © About-Britain.com

Photos of the House of Commons reproduced by permission of the British Parliament.

Photo top of page.
The State opening of Parliament 2019 by Roger Harris - © UK Parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A thematic index About-Britain.com - a guide : tourism, life, culture, institutions For information of the English language, its history, grammar and other aspects, visit our partner Linguapress.com How does Britain function? How is public life organised? How are things done differently in Britain, compared to other countries? And why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Анна Шестова

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is modern British identity   Citizenship   How Government Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First British Empire originated from Queen Elizabeth I granting Humphrey Gilbert a license to conduct overseas explorations in the name of the Crown (1578). The same license was later given to Walter Raleigh (1584). Gilbert explored the Caribbean while Raleigh founded a colony in today's North Carolina territory.

By the 17th century, England had created a series of settlements in North America and on various Caribbean islands. In Asia, the East India Company was established, where it traded under the Crown's license and acquired influence and territory in the area. Initially, the most profitable colonies were in areas of the Caribbean such as in St. Kitts, Barbados, and Nevis, where various sugar plantations developed and where Britain had the monopoly on trade. By the end of the 17th century, England had colonies in New England, Virginia, Maryland, the Bermudas, Honduras, Antigua, Barbados, Nova Scotia, and Jamaica.

Britain also continued to establish colonies in North America. Some of these colonies were bought; for example, Florida was originally ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First British Empire originated from Queen Elizabeth I granting Humphrey Gilbert a license to conduct overseas explorations in the name of the Crown (1578). The same license was later given to Walter Raleigh (1584). Gilbert explored the Caribbean while Raleigh founded a colony in today's North Carolina territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It became the stumbling block to Theresa May getting her deal approved by parliament, and remains a contentious Brexit negotiation issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How many Prime Ministers have served throughout Queen Elizabeth II's reign? Picture: Getty

Her Majesty has sworn in her fair share of political leaders over the years - but just how many Prime Ministers have been in power throughout her reign?

Boris Johnson visited the Queen at Buckingham Palace on 24 July, 2019 - with the monarch inviting him to form a new government, after he secured victory over Tory leadership rival, Jeremy Hunt, with a staggering 92,153 votes.

While his trip up The Mall was disrupted by climate change protestors, who attempted to block the path of the PM's motorcade, Boris managed to meet with the monarch and cement his role as the UK's new Prime Minister.

As well as spotting the Queen has a £550 Dyson fan, viewers of the live coverage were left wondering just how many PMs have sworn an oath to serve the British monarch over the years. Here's the full list.

How old is the Queen and how long has she been our monarch?

In 2015, Queen Elizabeth II, now 93, became the longest-reigning British monarch - and the first to celebrate her Sapphire Jubilee.

As it stands, she's reigned for 67 years.

How many Prime Ministers have served during Queen Elizabeth II's reign?

In total 14 Prime Ministers have allegiance to the Queen, since she ascended the throne aged 25 on 6 February, 1952 - including Boris Johnson.

Which Prime Ministers have served under the Queen?

1) Sir Winston Churchill...again
1951-1955, Conservative
Although Winston Churchill had previously served as Prime Minister, it was during Queen Elizabeth's father, King George VI's reign.

The much-loved politician remains an icon of patriotism and strength, as he navigated the country through the war and reinforced a "stiff upper lip" attitude among the people.

In 1953, Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature, became a Knight of the Garter and was accorded a rare state funeral after his death in January 1965.

2) Anthony Eden
1955-1957, Conservative
Serving just two years, Churchill's protégé Anthony Eden was far less popular than his predecessor.

Just a year into his premiership, Eden's opinion poll ratings plummeted and his failings were becoming increasingly obvious to the press, public and Whitehall alike.

As well as his controversial approach to the Suez Crisis of 1956, which saw the PM conspire with France and Israel to retake the canal and widespread condemnation from other nations, Eden attempted to lie to Parliament about his involvement.

Eden fell ill after undergoing a series of abdominal operations in 1953, before tendering his resignation.

3) Harold Macmillan
1957-1963, Conservative
Etonian Harold Macmillan served in both World Wars, before he was made the Minister of Housing in 1951.

He then went on to serve as Minister of Defence, Foreign Secretary, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, before becoming Prime Minister in 1957.

Inheriting Anthony Eden's disillusioned Conservative party and having to lead a country wrought with political uncertainty, Macmillan told the Queen he didn't think his administration would last any longer than 6 months.

Despite his reservations, Macmillan went on to serve his nation for 6 years.

Macmillan improved living standards and prosperity in the UK, claiming the public had "never had it so good." He also distanced the UK from apartheid in South Africa.

Tensions around the Cold War were also increasing throughout Macmillan's premiership, with the PM having to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and negotiating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

4) Alec Douglas-Home
1963-1964, Conservative
Despite only serving as Prime Minister for a total of 363 days, Douglas-Home managed to oversee the abolition of resale price maintenance and dealing with trade unions.

5) Harold Wilson
1964-1970, Labour
Yorkshire-born Labour politician, Harold Wilson, was best known for enacting social reforms in education, health, housing, gender equality and child poverty, among other social issues.

6) Edward Heath
1970-1974, Conservative
Ted Heath was Prime Minister during a time of great industrial and economic upheaval, ultimately leading Britain into the European Community in 1973.

Heath also pursued many economic ideals and policies that would later be identified with 'Thatcherism', however, as unemployment rates continued to rise and the strength of trade unions increased, Heath was forced to U-turn on his policies.

Harold Wilson...again
1974-1976, Labour
7) James Callaghan
1976-1979, Labour
Fun fact: James Callaghan is the only British Prime Minister to have held all 4 major offices of state.

'Big Jim' won the leadership election after Harold Wilson's shock resignation in 1976. Despite his apparent popularity among his party, Callaghan lost seats in Parliament on his first day in office, forcing him to rely on the Liberal Party and then the SNP throughout his premiership. Ultimately, it was this that triggered the 1979 referendum on the devolution of powers to Scotland.

Callaghan was also responsible for the 1976 Police Act, which formalised police complaints and procedures, and the Housing Act of 1977, which provided housing for homeless people.

What's possibly the most significant event in Callaghan's leadership was the 'Winter of Discontent', which saw public sector workers taking strike action. Callaghan then received a vote of no confidence.

8) Margaret Thatcher
1979-1990, Conservative
Known as the 'Iron Lady', Margaret Thatcher was the first female British Prime Minister - and the longest-serving for over 150 years.

While she gradually improved the state of the economy in her first two years in office, she led the country into war against Argentina, over the Falkland Islands.

Her radical programme of privatisation and deregulation was meant to increase self-reliance, however, a lot of her actions - including coal mine closures - caused uproar among the working classes, with strike action becoming a major theme throughout her premiership.

Among her notable career moments, Thatcher befriended US President Reagan and saw the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, before loyalist Michael Heseltine "stabbed her in the front" and challenged her for leadership.

9) John Major
1990-1997, Conservative
John Major is best known for beginning the Northern Ireland Peace Process, and for reviving the country's economic growth.

During his time, Major survived an IRA attack on Number 10, and took a leading role alongside President George Bush in the first Gulf War.

10) Tony Blair
1997-2007, Labour
When elected in 1997 by a "landslide", Blair was seen as a charismatic politician and the face of New Labour. The PM garnered huge public support, with many believing him to represent modern times and having the ability to move the nation forward.

Blair continued to focus on the Northern Ireland peace process, before the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998.

The Prime Minister was also responsible for the reform of the House of Lords, the Human Rights Act, Scottish and Welsh devolution, and more.

Years later, in 2001, Tony Blair responded to the 9/11 attack, which saw al-Qaeda terrorists hijack commercial airlines and fly them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon buildings in the US, by controversially engaging in war with Iraq.

At the time, the case for war was built on the belief that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. This led many to believe the Prime Minister led the UK into an illegal war.

11) Gordon Brown
2007-2010, Labour
Under Gordon Brown's leadership, the withdrawal of British troops in Iraq began. He also oversaw the world's first ever Climate Change Act and focused on the devolution of powers in Northern Ireland.

12) David Cameron
2010-2016, Conservative
Beating Tony Blair's record, David Cameron became the youngest Prime Minister since 1812.

After the 2010 General Election, which resulted in a hung parliament, Cameron formed a coalition government with the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg.

From the offset, Cameron made it clear he wanted to put political differences aside to come up with an action plan for the "common good".

In response to the Great Recession, David Cameron reinforced an austerity policy, a deficit-reducing programme to reduce government spending. This led to major cuts in public sectors.

After calling a referendum on whether Britain should remain or leave the EU in 2016, Cameron resigned as PM.

13) Theresa May
2016-2019, Conservative
The most prominent factor of May's career is her implementation of Brexit and her negotiations with the European Unio n on the UK's exit - or lack there of.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's how many Prime Ministers have served during the Queen's reign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Her Majesty has sworn in her fair share of political leaders over the years - but just how many Prime Ministers have been in power throughout her reign? Boris Johnson visited the Queen at Buckingham Palace on 24 July, 2019 - with the monarch inviting him to form a new government, after he secured victory over Tory leadership rival, Jeremy Hunt, with a staggering 92,153 votes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free General Legal English Course Lesson 1 - Recording from 7th April 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prerogative powers are powers which have belonged to the monarch since the Middle Ages, but in modern times are exercised largely by government ministers. The most important powers exercised by ministers are the power to make war and deploy the armed forces; to conduct foreign policy and make treaties; to make public and judicial appointments; to issue passports; and to grant pardons and honours.

But the Queen still exercises some prerogative powers herself, known as her reserve powers or the personal prerogatives. The most important of these are the power to appoint and dismiss ministers, including the Prime Minister; to summon and prorogue parliament, i.e. end the current parliamentary session; and to give royal assent to bills passed by parliament. Royal assent to bills is automatically granted, once a bill has been passed by both houses of parliament. The other powers are exercised on the advice of ministers, advice which- by convention -the Queen is normally expected to follow. But as the ultimate guardian of the constitution, the Queen has power to dismiss a Prime Minister who refuses to resign after losing the confidence of the House of Commons; and in future the Queen may be expected to refuse an untimely request for prorogation, lest it be declared unlawful.

Ministers are accountable for their use of prerogative powers - the same is true for statutory powers (powers conferred on ministers through Acts of Parliament). If there is concern that ministers have used prerogative powers improperly, the exercise of these powers can be regulated by the courts. A recent example of this is the 2019 prorogation ruling in which the Supreme Court decided that Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks was unlawful.

The past two decades have seen certain prerogative powers become subject to greater control by parliament. Some have been replaced by statutory powers. The power to appoint and regulate civil servants was placed on a statutory footing by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG 2010), and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 removed the Queen's prerogative power to dissolve parliament, and placed dissolution in the hands of parliament. This may be reversed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021, which would restore the prerogative power of dissolution. In other cases, the power remains a prerogative one, but statute gives parliament control over its use: CRAG 2010 codified the convention that new treaties have to be laid before parliament before the government can ratify them. Lastly, some prerogatives, like the war-making power, may be regulated by constitutional convention. Following the decision to intervene in Iraq in 2003-which was approved by a vote in the commons-a convention seemed to emerge that, before troops are deployed overseas, the commons should normally be allowed to vote on the matter; but that was not followed when Theresa May authorised airstrikes in Syria in April 2018.

The reform of the prerogative in the UK (and in other 'Westminster'-style democracies) is currently the subject of a five-year comparative research project, involving the Constitution Unit's founder, Professor Robert Hazell.

Related explainers:
What are constitutional conventions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prerogative powers are powers which have belonged to the monarch since the Middle Ages, but in modern times are exercised largely by government ministers. The most important powers exercised by ministers are the power to make war and deploy the armed forces; to conduct foreign policy and make treaties; to make public and judicial appointments; to issue passports; and to grant pardons and honours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gowns and crowns- the State Opening explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boris Johnson announces resignation - Full speech - July 7, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, 50 years on: Setting the scene in 1968 | ITV News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Commonwealth? - BBC What's New

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Queen's 54 Countries: Commonwealth of Nations Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Scottish referendum looks set to bring change to the UK Parliament. But Westminster has seen plenty of that over the past 900 years.

Talking shop

Parliament started life as an English affair. It was not much of a Parliament - more of a talking shop for the king and rich men. The king asked their advice, but did what he wanted. These meetings morphed into a formal arrangement which eventually became the House of Lords. In those days - and for several centuries later - England was busy fighting with Scotland and raiding Wales.

Swamp thing

By the 13th Century, a parliament was when kings met up with English barons to raise cash for fighting wars - mostly against Scotland. Thanks to Magna Carta of 1215, kings were now obliged to ask before taking anyone's money. That did not stop the rows though. Some barons got fed up with Henry III - not least because of his failed, expensive battles in Wales. The ambitious Simon de Montfort sidelined Henry and made himself ruler. De Montfort was a big fan of Parliament. The one in 1265 was the first to involve "ordinary" folk - knights, not just the super-rich. And it was the first time elections were held - the first stirrings of the House of Commons we know today. The venue was usually Westminster, where one enterprising monarch had built a massive hall on a swamp, which grew into the Palace of Westminster. Westminster Hall is still in use today.

Scottish independence - a grisly end

Scotland had its own parliament from the 13th century, which was occasionally held in open air. In those days, though, the king had the real power. So one of the early campaigns for independence was sparked by an English king declaring himself king of Scotland. William Wallace led the rebellion. In those days campaign weapons were bows and arrows. Wallace was eventually found guilty of treason. He was dragged through the streets of London naked before being hanged, drawn and quartered.

Money talks

In the early days there were no rules on who could vote. But a feeling developed that too many "persons of low estate" were doing so. So from 1430 you could only vote if you owned property worth 40 shillings. The rule stayed in place for 400 years.

Same king - different parliament

Ireland also had its own parliament from the 13th Century. In 1542, Irish MPs decided that whoever was king of England should also be king of Ireland. They kept their parliament going though.

The seeds of a UK Parliament were sown in 1542 when Wales came on board. At the time, Wales was a patchwork of independent areas. But along came Henry VIII, a man fond of dramatic gestures. Having given the Catholic Church its marching orders, he was worried that the Catholics would not go quietly. To stop the Welsh coming under their influence, he decided Wales would be ruled by England. By now Parliament was a full-blooded institution and Wales was allowed to send representatives. Henry called it an Act of Union but it was more of a forced marriage.

An imperfect union

By 1603, England and Scotland had the same king but different parliaments. King James tried to persuade the English Parliament to bring the Scottish Parliament into the fold. But English MPs refused to let any Scots into the Westminster club.

Parliament bites

The Commons got into its stride in the 1620s. Turbulent years and a great time to be a journalist. Fights in the chamber... the king trying to arrest MPs. Eventually, Charles I dissolved Parliament for 11 years. He brought it back because he was short of money for a war with... Scotland. The rows got worse, leading to a war between Parliament and the king. The king was put on trial and then executed. Hard to imagine nowadays but the Commons voted to abolish the monarchy altogether.

A brief UK parliament

After the civil war, England became a republic under Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell had big ideas. He annexed Scotland and Ireland into a full union with a single parliament at Westminster. The 1654 parliament was the first one in which the whole of Britain was represented. But Cromwell dissolved it pretty quickly when MPs refused to do his bidding.

An expanding union

Big changes for Parliament from 1707 when Scotland became a fully paid-up member. Again, it was about fears of a Catholic takeover - to stop a Catholic king forming a rival power base in Scotland. It was also prompted by the failure of a colonial venture in central America, which left Scotland bankrupt and in need of money - even if it was English cash. The 1707 Act of Union brought England and Scotland together - with one king and no more Scottish Parliament. Scottish MPs and Lords made their way down to Westminster. But there were complaints, elegantly summed up by Robert Burns, that Scotland had been "bought and sold for English gold".

The final piece - Ireland

At the end of the 18th Century, there was a powerful campaign for Irish independence from England. The English response? To crush the rebellion brutally and bring Ireland firmly into the UK with another Act of Union. That was the end of the Irish Parliament. A hundred Irish MPs turned up at Westminster. By now, the Commons chamber was getting pretty crowded.

Big changes

The fledgling UK Parliament - now made up of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs - had a lot to grapple with in the 19th Century. The assassination of a prime minister and the start of big changes to Parliament - with more men being given the vote and people being allowed to vote in secret.

Ireland question

There was a succession of rebellions in Ireland, throughout the 19th Century, against Britain. Moderate rebels settled on "Home Rule" as the way forward - which included bringing back an Irish Parliament. Just as the Westminster Parliament looked set to agree, World War One broke out. Finally in 1920 - after a rebellion which became a civil war - a law was passed dividing Ireland into north and south. Northern Ireland was given its own parliament, which was suspended 1972 because of the Troubles. The south became a new independent Irish state. And, of course, this arrangement was fiercely controversial for most of the 20th Century.

Votes for women

For the first 800 years or so Parliament was a club for men. Women finally got the vote in 1918 after the campaign by the Suffragettes. The first woman elected to the Commons, in 1918, was Countess Constance Markievicz but as a member of Sinn Fein she refused to take her seat. The first woman to take her seat was Viscountess Nancy Astor in 1919.

Not forgotten

The desire for Scottish independence has never gone away. The Scottish National Party was created in 1934 and won its first seat at Westminster in 1945. The SNP managed an all-time high of 11 Westminster seats in 1974. Five years later there was a referendum on Scottish devolution. A small majority voted in favour. But the proposal did not get the support of the required 40% of the electorate. Welsh nationalists created Plaid Cymru in 1925, reaching a peak of four Westminster seats in 1992. It is a peculiar situation for nationalist MPs - sitting in a parliament that they do not want to be a part of. For Irish nationalist politicians - Sinn Fein - the answer is to win a seat but never turn up at Westminster.

Start of the break-up?

Parliament had its first major jolt to the system in a long while when Labour came into government in 1997. Tony Blair decided to complete some unfinished business. Along came a Parliament for Scotland with powers to make laws on education, health and crime. Labour hoped devolution would kill off Scottish nationalism for good. But the SNP ended up winning the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2007. For Northern Ireland and Wales, there were assemblies.

What next?

David Cameron announced in October 2012 that there would be a referendum on whether Scotland should separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. It was held on 18 September 2014 and turned out to be a lot closer than expected, with 45% voting for independence. Promises of more powers devolved to Scotland were made as the campaign neared its end. They have prompted calls for changes to the rules, so only English MPs decide on matters, such as education, which only apply to England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scottish referendum looks set to bring change to the UK Parliament. But Westminster has seen plenty of that over the past 900 years. Talking shop Parliament started life as an English affair. It was not much of a Parliament - more of a talking shop for the king and rich men.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief History of The Scramble For Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humiliated Boris Johnson forced from power - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How will a former prince used to speaking out on issues he cared deeply about adapt to the neutrality of a monarch?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prime Minister Liz Truss-s tribute to Queen Elizabeth II in the House of Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Le dessous des cartes - L'essentiel - La Reine et le Commonwealth - Regarder l'émission complète | ARTE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Au lendemain du décès de la reine Elizabeth II, "Le Dessous des cartes - L'essentiel" vous propose un parcours cartographique dans le Commonwealth. Elizabeth II était reine de quinze États membres dont le Canada, l'Australie et la Nouvelle Zélande.Tous les pays du Commonwealth rassemblent 2,4 milliards d'individus soit presque un tiers de la population mondiale, avec une langue commune, l'anglais.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Queen Elizabeth II, 1926 - 2022

The state funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will take place on Monday 19th September at 11.00am.

Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church are currently closed for preparations for the state funeral. We regret we are unable to accept any flowers or tributes - please take them to The Green Park.

More information

The second Monday in March is Commonwealth Day, one of the most important dates in the Abbey's calendar.

4 minute read

Marked every year since the 1970s, Commonwealth Day recognises the unity and diversity of a remarkable family of nations, with a special service in the Abbey at the heart of the celebrations.

A global family

Founded more than 70 years ago, the modern Commonwealth is an association of 54 member states with a combined population of 2.4 billion citizens, almost a third of the world's people. Commonwealth countries span Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific. Members are diverse - they are amongst the world's largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries, and are home to myriad cultures and religions. All members have an equal say regardless of size or wealth, ensuring even the smallest countries have a voice in shaping the Commonwealth.

'We gather, in this house of prayer, to celebrate our common life as God's people and to celebrate as a Commonwealth of Nations. Today, we look for the words to express a hope we can share, the common future in which all might flourish.

'So, we pray for God's guidance. We seek the gifts of an imagination that can hope abundantly and a courage to seize that hope. Confident in the richness and range of our Commonwealth, we are one people with one hope under God.'

The Very Reverend Dr David Hoyle
Dean of Westminster

An annual celebration

Held on the second Monday in March, the service is Britain's largest annual inter-faith gathering. It is traditionally attended by HM The Queen accompanied by members of the Royal Family.

They are joined by a 2000-strong congregation of High Commissioners and Ambassadors, faith leaders, honoured guests, and 800 school children and young people from across the United Kingdom.

The service concludes with the Act of Affirmation to the Commonwealth, led by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, in which the congregation affirms that:

'... every person possesses unique worth and dignity. We affirm our respect for nature, and that we will be stewards of the earth by caring for every part of it, and for it as a whole. We affirm our belief in justice for everyone, and peace between peoples and nations.'

From all those who contribute to the Abbey service to the Commonwealth's many institutions and partnerships, Commonwealth Day is an annual opportunity to celebrate this remarkable international organisation to which HM The Queen has lent her unstinting support throughout her life. As she said in her Commonwealth Day message in 2020:

'On Commonwealth occasions, it is always inspiring to be reminded of the diversity of the people and countries that make up our worldwide family. We are made aware of the many associations and influences that combine through Commonwealth connection, helping us to imagine and deliver a common future.

'This is particularly striking when we see people from nations, large and small, gathering for the Commonwealth Games, for meetings of Commonwealth governments, and on Commonwealth Day. Such a blend of traditions serves to make us stronger, individually and collectively, by providing the ingredients needed for social, political and economic resilience.

'Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to see and hear how membership of the Commonwealth family means so much to those living in all parts of the world, often in places that are quite remote. Advances in technology and modern media have now enabled many more people to witness and enjoy - with remarkable immediacy - this experience of Commonwealth connection, in areas such as education, medicine and conservation.

'As members of this very special community, on this Commonwealth Day, I hope that the people and countries of the Commonwealth will be inspired by all that we share, and move forward with fresh resolve to enhance the Commonwealth's influence for good in our world.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Celebrating the Commonwealth | Westminster Abbey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content The state funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will take place on Monday 19th September at 11.00am. Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church are currently closed for preparations for the state funeral. We regret we are unable to accept any flowers or tributes - please take them to The Green Park.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit explained (explainity® explainer video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Brexit - part 2' explained (explainity® explainer video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cromwell, the army and godly government | English Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What were the Putney Debates? | English Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The significance of the trial and execution of Charles I | English Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE STUARTS IN 7 MINUTES   PRESENTED BY COMEDIAN DAVID MITCHELL HD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was the 'Scramble for Africa'? - BBC What's New

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colonization of Africa - Summary on a Map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Politics Explained: A Brief History (1900 - 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief History of The Scramble For Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State Opening of Parliament: history, tradition and what to expect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The State Opening of Parliament is one of the most anticipated events of the parliamentary year. Beamed to television and radio networks around the world, it has become a symbol of the UK's democratic heritage. What is the history behind some of the peculiar practices and procedures that surround State Opening?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Magna Carta and the emergence of Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
19 April 2021

By Dominik Lelkes

The right to self-determination of 'all the peoples' is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter art. 1, para. 2). It is a fundamental principle of international law based on what people are entitled to freely decide over their political status and freely pursue their own social, cultural, and economic practices. Despite this principle being one of the cornerstones of basic norms, it is still frequent that it ends at a crossroads with legal regulations. If we continue walking down the self-determination lane, we will eventually reach the concept of recognition. The latter is closely related to the concept of self-determination. This can be applied, for example, to a minority living within a particular state's territory. A minority has the right to self-determination and can claim independence, however, this does not automatically validate the latter claim, neither does it grant the legal recognition by the state it claims sovereignty from nor by the international community. This is the case with territories such as Scotland, Catalonia, the Kurds, the Basques, Ireland, or Kosovo. For the purpose of clarity, I will focus on the state of play of Catalonia's and Scotland's independence particular cases.

The autonomous community of Catalonia is a region on the north-eastern coast of Spain, encompassing the provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Tarragona, and Lleida. Catalonia is one of the richest and most industrialized regions of Spain. The Catalan question started to gain momentum by the end of the 20th century when the Catalan identity started to emerge. A survey conducted by Podemos, the Spanish left-wing populist party, revealed that the pro-independence voters in Catalonia grew from 14% in 2006 to 47% by 2017 (Marini, 2017). Up to 2021, the citizens of Catalonia have been called upon twice to vote on the independence of Catalonia in a referendum. Both of these referendums, the first organized in 2014 and the second in 2017, were considered by the Spanish authorities illegal and invalid (Marini, 2017).

The biggest obstacle in the Catalan independence question is the rigid Spanish Constitution itself. of the Constitution is the focal point of the Catalan situation. states : "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation...the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards..." (ES Const. art. 2) Therefore the 2014 and 2017 Catalan referendums on independence were unconstitutional because Spain constitutionally is a unitary and indivisible state. From the juridical point of view, the unconstitutionality and non-validity of the 2014 and 2017 referendums are strengthened by two other articles of the Constitution including - and Article 149.32 - which state that " the referendum shall be called by the King on the President of the Government's proposal after previous authorization by the Congress"...as well as..." the State shall have exclusive competence over the authorization of popular consultations through the holding of referendums " (ES Const. art. 92, § 2. & art. 149, § 1./32.).

When the central state negotiates the legality of the vote in advance, a referendum can be the right tool to change the territorial boundaries and the particular state involved can declare de jure sovereignty. The problem arises as were the cases with the above mentioned 2014 and 2017 Catalan referendums when the legality of the vote had not been discussed in advance between the central state and the concerned proponent and thus it was rather a claimed de facto sovereignty (Collin 2017). From this point of view, the separatist referendums of the Catalan government in 2014 and 2017 were rather illegal and irregular because:

1. They were invoked by the regional authority and not the central government;

2. Due to not having neither the consent of the central authority nor any prior legal consultation regarding the subject of the referendum.

Furthermore, under the 2017 referendum crises, Article 155 of the Constitution was also activated. It states that: " if a Self-governing Community does not fulfill the obligations imposed upon it by the Constitution or other laws, or acts in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the general interest of Spain, the Government may... take all measures necessary to compel the Community to meet said obligations, or to protect the above-mentioned general interest" (ES Const. art. 155, § 1.). With the activation of Article 155 in 2017, the former President Mr Rajoy's cabinet gained direct rule over Mr. Puigdemont's government of Catalonia which resulted in the dismissal of the Catalan government as well as the Catalan Parliament.

We cannot anticipate the future outcomes of the state of the Catalan question, since it seemingly could have enjoyed a different destiny since the 2019 electoral success of Pedro Sánchez and his Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). Despite PSOE promised to find a solution for the Catalan aspiration of independence after its electoral victory, after two years, no concrete action has been taken by Mr. Sánchez's cabinet. As a result, the pro-independence Catalan Republican Left Party (ERC) warned Mr. Sánchez to finally act on the Catalan question if the PSOE wants the ECR to continue to abstain from the " investidura " (confidence) vote thanks to which the PSOE could form its cabinet in 2019. Pedro Sánchez has expressed his openness to address the Catalan issue and the need to reform the constitutional bodies and the constitution per se to resolve such conflicts through legal and democratic means (Russell, 2021).

Demonstration in central Barcelona on 10 July 2010. Credits: SBA73/ Flickr

My second brief case-study is that of Scotland, another example that struggles with its agenda to gain independence and legal recognition. The Scottish National Party (SNP) was founded in 1934 to unite all nationalist Scottish political parties on the political spectrum including the left-leaning pro-independence National Party of Scotland (NPS) and the conservative Scottish Party. For the first time in Scotland's history, the Scotland Act of 1978 invoked the referendum as a political tool to be applied in the country. However, it was not until 1999 when the first successful referendum was held at the Scottish Parliament. After almost a decade, 2007 was a unique year for the SNP as for the first time since its existence, the party gained a historic victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections, increasing its share of seats to 47 out of 129 and thus defeating and setting the Labour Party in 2 nd place with 46 seats. The SNP throughout the years continued its success story and in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections, the party gained for the first time a majority (69/129) in Holyrood, a factor that enabled them to call a referendum.

Eventually, the political agreement between David Cameron, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK, and Alex Salmond, the ex-Prime Minister of Scotland, in 2012 set out terms for the Scottish independence referendum (Black 2012). Despite the successful agreement, the 2014 Scottish referendum on independence did not show a successful turnout - only 45% in favor of independence whilst 55% against it (Paun & Sargeant 2020). Albeit, the referendum failed, two years later, when the United Kingdom started the Brexit campaign in 2016, the SNP under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon again called for another referendum on the question of Remaining in the EU. Scotland voted 62% in favor which underlined Mrs. Sturgeon's argument that "Scotland and the voters should be given a choice between Brexit and independence" (Paun & Sargeant 2020).

Although Scotland has expressed its intention to leave the UK, the central government still today refuses to transfer power to the Scottish government to hold another referendum. The UK government, on the contrary, considers the question of the Scottish referendum as settled, referring to the bilateral deal between Nicola Sturgeon and the UK government made upon the 2014 Scottish referendum "as a once in a generation vote" (Paun & Sargeant 2020).

Scottish independence remains highly questionable. A referendum needs the consent of Westminster which is very unlikely to happen under Mr. Johnson's administration. Besides, it is not given 100% that the Scottish people would eventually vote in favor of leaving the UK. Public surveys conducted in 2019 suggested that inclination towards "No Independence" almost equals "Leaving the UK" (Paun & Sargeant 2020). Furthermore, independence would also have negative consequences for Scotland from the trading and economic point of view. An economic border with both the UK and the European Union would shrink the Scottish economy in the long run by 6.3% to 8.7%. Withdrawal from the UK's common market would account for 61% of its exports and 67% of its imports which would increase trading costs by 15% to 30% (Carrell 2021). Besides such economic impacts, independence also brings the need to establish a new currency which would again deprive Scotland of some exclusive privileges - from the financial facilities of the Bank of England. This is to suggest that Scottish independence would be pointless, at least from the economic point of view because it would impoverish the Scottish economy and consequently raise the poverty rate within the country.

Despite both the Scottish and Catalan cases face challenges to gain legal recognition, their cases differ in many ways. The biggest obstacle for Catalonia is the rigid Constitution, which makes it challenging for the region to gain recognition. The EU is not willing to intervene in the Catalan question and has taken a quite neutral position by addressing this crisis as part of the scope of "Spanish internal affairs". Furthermore, if Catalonia were to gain legal recognition, it might be vetoed from joining the EU by Spain itself. In the case of Scotland, the latter situation depends mainly on the legislation and the consent of Westminster to approve the SNP to hold another referendum, which is very unlikely to happen under Mr. Johnson's administration. Moreover, if Scotland were to gain independence, the country might face serious economic and financial challenges. Joining the EU for Scotland would be one option but a successful accession would take a longer time. The fate of Catalonia and Scotland is not likely to be solved in the upcoming years.
Bibliography

Black, A., 2012. Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal. BBC Scotland , [Website]. October 15.

Carrell, S., 2021. Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11 bn a year, the forecast suggests. The Guardian, [Website]. February 3. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/03/independence-could-cost-scotlands-economy-11bn-a-year-forecast-suggests

Jones, S., 2020. Socialists and Podemos to rule together in the Spanish coalition. , [Website]. January 7. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41584864

"Spanish Constitution: A Transcription"Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Available at: https://www.boe.es/legislacion/documentos/ConstitucionINGLES.pdf Accessed on 25 March 2021.

United Nations, Charter of the United Nations , 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text [accessed 14 April 2021]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the right to self-determination: The Scottish and Catalan cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
19 April 2021 By Dominik Lelkes The right to self-determination of 'all the peoples' is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter art. 1, para. 2). It is a fundamental principle of international law based on what people are entitled to freely decide over their political status and freely pursue their own social, cultural, and economic practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Difference Between the AV and STV Electoral Systems?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2010, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg described Labour's plans for AV as "a miserable little reform". As Deputy Prime Minister, he is putting forward the very referendum that he dismissed in that language, and heralding its importance. What is it, why is being proposed and what did Nick Clegg want to happen before he became Deputy Prime Minister?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Treatment of EU Directives: some examples

Some UK legislation derived from EU Directives has been retained with no amendments at all. Examples include:

the Working Time Regulations 1998, which effectively impose minimum standards on matters including working hours, paid holiday and rest periods; and

the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 which, among other things, give agents the right to claim post-termination payments (designed to compensate them for goodwill built up on behalf of the principal during the period of the agency).

That said, subject to certain constraints (see Section 10 below) the UK is now free to change legislation in these (and many other) areas - although whether it will actually do so remains to be seen.

In other cases, numerous changes were necessary to make the legislation "work" outside the EU. For example, depending on the context, references to EU supervisory institutions in many pieces of financial services legislation derived from EU Directives have been replaced with references to UK bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of England or UK Ministers, as appropriate. This has happened, for instance, in the UK legislation that had originally transposed the regimes established by Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) and the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). Similarly, provisions allowing for reciprocal recognition of financial services providers authorised by EU and EEA Member States and the concept of "passporting" financial services on a cross-border basis or through the establishment of branches have been removed (to reflect the UK's exit from the EU Single Market).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retained EU law: 10 key questions | Travers Smith

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Treatment of EU Directives: some examples Some UK legislation derived from EU Directives has been retained with no amendments at all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been some controversy in recent weeks about what the late Baroness Thatcher would have thought of Brexit. Lord Powell, her private secretary, recently said she would have re-negotiated membership and then backed a vote to remain. Lord Tebbit dismissed this opinion as that of an 'apparatchik, and not a politician' - and suggested that the Iron Lady would be in favour of Brexit. But if speculation about Thatcher's opinion on the EU referendum is to be the order of the day, we should at least base it on a nuanced view of her historic legacy.

Thatcher's uncompromising and often provocative rhetoric regarding European integration is probably best remembered through three famous public statements: "I want my money back!"; "We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level"; and "No, no, no!". The first summed up her negotiating strategy during the five-year struggle with her continental counterparts about Britain's contributions to the European Community's budget, a fight from which she was to emerge victorious in 1984. The second was the most trenchant sentence in her Bruges speech of 1988 about the future of the European Community. The third represented her adamant rejection in October 1990 of propositions to increase the powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

These bombastic statements demonstrate Thatcher's readiness to fight to the bone for Britain's national interest within the European Community, and they rather give the impression that she was an aggressive critic of European integration. But these must not blind us to the fact that there was much more to her European policy. The European integration process underwent a significant re-launch during the mid-1980s, after at least a decade of deadlock. By helping to bring about the Single European Act in February 1986 (the first significant change to the Treaties of Rome of 1957) she was, in fact, a central architect of European integration.

The European Council meeting at Fontainebleau in June 1984 represented a turning point, both for the European Community and for Thatcher's European policy. The question of a rebate for Britain's budget contribution was finally settled, and now Thatcher could turn her attention to a project close to her heart: the completion of the Single Market. Transforming the European Community into a great free trade area devoid of internal barriers went hand-in-hand with her domestic policy of liberalization and deregulation. Thatcher was never an enthusiast of a political union, let alone a federation, on the European level; rather, her priorities for the European Community mirrored her priorities at home - economic growth and tight budgetary discipline.

The moment to achieve those aims now appeared to have come, because the completion of the single market was also the flagship project of the incoming Commission president, Jacques Delors. His appointment was settled at Fontainebleau, behind closed doors and without Thatcher's knowledge, between the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the French President François Mitterand. While Thatcher was greatly surprised by Delors' candidacy (she had expected, and been ready to support, a German, but not a Frenchman) she accepted it without quarrel once she was informed about it several weeks later.

She sent the successful businessman and former member of her own cabinet, Lord Francis Arthur Cockfield, to Brussels to work under Delors as commissioner responsible for the Single Market. Cockfield's appointment was Thatcher's personal choice, one that she had to defend even to her private secretary, Lord Powell. It was probably also Thatcher's most significant contribution to the conclusion of the Single European Act. With astonishing speed and impressive thoroughness, Cockfield produced a coherent programme for the completion of the Single Market in the form of a White Paper, which was to form the basis for the new treaty.

Thatcher's dedication to the idea of a completed Single Market was such that she made considerable concessions during the negotiations to bring it about. The biggest compromise of all from her perspective was to accept that the programme for the Single Market would take the form of a legally binding treaty, rather than a mere agreement. When the majority of the member states called for an Intergovernmental Conference to draw up the treaty, Thatcher was fuming with anger, but she did not walk away from the negotiations. Pressured by Kohl, she even agreed to having monetary cooperation on the European level mentioned in the preamble of the Single European Act, something which she had really wanted to avoid.

The Single European Act had enormous ramifications for the way the European Community was to be run. No only did it provide for the completion of the Single Market, it also simplified the decision-making in the European Council by extending the principle of qualified majority voting to a large number of issues that until then had been decided unanimously.

As a result, it paved the way for the series of integrative measures that were pushed through during the late 1980s, leading to the Treaties of Maastricht in 1992. It was when Thatcher understood these consequences that she began to turn against the European Community in general and Jacques Delors in particular. She had come to realize that the commission president did not share the British hopes for 'Thatcherism on a European scale.' Still, Thatcher's and Delors' interests had been temporarily aligned for a short and decisive moment, with very lasting consequences for the European Community.
Helene von Bismarck received her PhD in modern history from the Humboldt-University in Berlin. Her first book analysed Britain's imperial role in the Persian Gulf during the 1960s (Palgrave Macmillan 2013). She is now working on a book about Margaret Thatcher's relationship with Jacques Delors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Margaret Thatcher: the critical architect of European integration | UK in a changing Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been some controversy in recent weeks about what the late Baroness Thatcher would have thought of Brexit. Lord Powell, her private secretary, recently said she would have re-negotiated membership and then backed a vote to remain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Tom Edgington & Tamara Kovacevic BBC News

Reuters

The Windsor Framework was announced by Rishi Sunak and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen

A new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland, known as the Windsor Framework, has been adopted by the UK and the EU.

It builds on the Northern Ireland Protocol, which led to significant disagreements between the UK and European Union (EU).

Why does Northern Ireland need its own Brexit deal?

Trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was straightforward before Brexit - both were in the EU and shared the same trade rules.

However, when Northern Ireland left the EU, a deal was required to allow trade to continue across the border.

The EU has strict food rules, and requires border checks when certain goods - such as milk and eggs - arrive from non-EU countries like the UK. Paperwork is also required for other goods.

But idea of checks at the border with Ireland is a sensitive issue because of Northern Ireland's troubled political history.

It was feared that introducing cameras or border posts as part of checks on incoming and outgoing goods could lead to instability.

What is the Northern Ireland Protocol?

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed the Northern Ireland Protocol with the EU. It became part of international law and came into force on 1 January 2021.

Under the Northern Ireland Protocol, new checks were introduced.

But rather than taking place at the Irish border, inspection and document checks are carried out at Northern Ireland's ports. This applies to goods travelling from Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) to Northern Ireland.

The checks apply even if the goods are due to remain in Northern Ireland.

Getty Images

Unionist parties - which support Northern Ireland being part of the UK - argued these checks create an effective border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Businesses have also complained the checks mean extra costs and delays.

What is the Windsor Framework?

The new deal is aimed at significantly reducing the number of checks required.

It envisages two "lanes" for goods arriving in Northern Ireland from Great Britain:

A green lane for goods which will remain in Northern Ireland

A red lane for goods which may be sent on to the EU

Products going through the green lane not need checks or additional paperwork.

Red lane goods would still be subject to checks.

The current bans on certain products - like chilled sausages - entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain would be removed.

Northern Ireland would also no longer have to follow certain EU rules, for example on VAT and alcohol duties.

What is the Stormont brake?

Under the previous deal, some EU laws still applied in Northern Ireland. However, politicians at Stormont - home to the Northern Ireland Assembly - had no way of influencing them.

The new agreement introduces a so-called "Stormont brake". This would let the Northern Ireland Assembly - which creates laws in Northern Ireland - to object to new EU rules.

The process would be triggered if 30 Northern Ireland politicians from two or more parties sign a petition.

The brake could not be used for "trivial reasons" and would be reserved for "significantly different" rules.

The threshold would be "really high" according to EU law professor Catherine Barnard. "It's a security measure, but one that's not meant to be used very often," she says.

Once the UK tells the EU the brake has been triggered, the rule cannot be implemented.

The process would not be overseen by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but it would still have a final say on whether Northern Ireland is following certain EU rules (known as single market rules).

Will the new deal be accepted?

The deal was approved by the UK Parliament, and formally adopted by the UK and the EU.

However, Northern Ireland's largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), voted against it.

DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said the party has concerns about the Windsor Framework, but it would "continue to work with the government on all the outstanding issues".

The party also rejected the original protocol, and is still refusing to take part in Northern Ireland's power-sharing government until its concerns are addressed.

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: What are the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland has been adopted by the UK and the EU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post-Brexit: Businesses hit by labour shortages call for Brexit rules to be relaxed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The creation of new legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast marked the beginning of the new era of devolution. They were designed to give expression to the distinct identities of the devolved nations and to foster a more collaborative, consensus-based politics than at Westminster. Since then, the three legislatures have used their powers to shape the statute book in their respective nations. While the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly gained full legislative powers in 1999, the National Assembly for Wales initially held executive power only, taking on full legislative powers in 2011.

The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were designed to limit executive dominance. Proportional electoral systems were established, in the expectation that single parties would rarely be able to form a majority government. Instead, minority and coalition governments have had to work across party lines. In addition, procedures were set up to make it easier for backbenchers and committees to introduce and advance legislation. But in practice the Scottish and Welsh executives have introduced a larger share of legislation than the UK Government has at Westminster. This may indicate that ambitions to promote more backbench and committee participation have not fully been realised.

The Northern Ireland Assembly was designed to "ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully",[1] to facilitate power- sharing between unionists and nationalists. However, power-sharing has collapsed several times, including between 2002 and 2007, and since January 2017. And even before the most recent collapse of power-sharing, there were signs of escalating tension between unionist and nationalist parties, with growing use of the 'petition of concern' process that enables either side to exercise a veto.

The devolved parliaments and assemblies have created new bodies of legislation for their respective nations

Until 1999, the UK Parliament was the source of all legislation across the whole of the UK. Since devolution, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly have taken on the task of passing laws for their respective nations and have developed distinctive new bodies of law in areas of devolved responsibility.

The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have had the power to pass primary legislation since 1999. Between 1999 and the end of 2018, there were 282 Acts of the Scottish Parliament (including 19 private Acts*) and 173 Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly.** The volume of Northern Ireland Assembly legislation is lower due to the extended collapses of power-sharing. In the periods that it has been active, the Assembly has passed 14 pieces of primary legislation a year, nearly as many as the Scottish Parliament (15). The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have each passed almost 40% as many Acts as Westminster: the UK Parliament passed 825 Acts (including 77 private Acts) between the May 1997 general election and the end of 2018, or 38 Acts a year. In Northern Ireland, there have been spikes in legislation in the final years before scheduled elections (in 2011 and 2016).

The Welsh Assembly had no power to pass primary legislation when it was first established. But from 2007, it was empowered to pass pieces of primary legislation known as Measures. This power was dependent on a mechanism called the Legislative Competence Order, by which Westminster granted the Assembly legislative powers over specific policy areas on a case-by-case basis.[2] Between 2007 and 2011, the Assembly secured 15 Legislative Competence Orders and passed 22 Measures. In 2011, it gained the power to pass Acts within all devolved policy areas, without first needing approval from Westminster. It has since passed 37 Acts, or 4.8 Acts a year. The Welsh Assembly has powers in fewer policy areas than the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, so passes less legislation overall.

*A private Act is legislation that only applies to a certain group of people or organisations. For example, the University of Manchester Act 2004 merged two universities in Manchester. The Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have procedures to pass private legislation, but have not done so in practice.

**Unless otherwise stated, all figures are as of 31 December 2018.

The legislatures have made new laws across the range of devolved policy areas

The devolved parliaments and assemblies can legislate on any matter that is not 'reserved' to the UK Parliament.* The balance between reserved and devolved matters varies between the three devolved nations. For example, Wales has no powers over justice and home affairs (such as policing, crime and fire services), while Northern Ireland has powers over transport and energy that are not devolved elsewhere.

Since devolution, about 40% of all Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly legislation has been on health, education, communities and the environment.** In the Welsh Assembly this is closer to 75%.

The devolved legislatures have taken the opportunity of devolution to do things differently from Westminster, leading to growing legislative divergence across the UK. For example, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in Scotland brought in legislation to introduce free personal care for older people in 2002, and in 2018 the Scottish National Party (SNP) Government amended the law to extend it to the under-65s too.[6]

In several cases, temporary divergence has been followed by re-convergence as the legislatures have made changes to the law that have gone on to be adopted in other parts of the UK:

The Scottish Government brought in legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places from 2006. The UK Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies subsequently passed similar legislation.[7]

The Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in Wales introduced a levy on plastic carrier bags in 2011 and the other governments followed suit.[8]

The minority Labour Government in Wales introduced a soft opt-out system for organ donation in 2015. Similar legislation will come into effect in England in 2020.[9]

The Scottish Government introduced proportional representation for local elections in 2004,[10] which was already in place in Northern Ireland. Scotland also introduced votes for 16- and 17-year-olds in 2015.[11] The Welsh Assembly is now considering legislation to lower the voting age to 16 for Assembly and local elections.[12]

Devolution has thus enabled the new parliaments and assemblies to experiment with different policies. The Institute for Government has called this, in principle, an important benefit of devolution.[13]

*Before the Wales Act 2017, the Welsh Assembly could only pass legislation relating to explicitly devolved matters (see Jones E, Richards M and Thomas A, The Wales Bill: Reserved matters and their effect on the Assembly's legislative competence, National Assembly for Wales Research Service, 2016, pp. 1-2, www.assembly.wales/research%20documents/16-051/16-051-web-english.pdf).

**Excluding finance bills, as the Scottish Parliament passes only one budget a year and the Northern Ireland Assembly passes two. The Welsh Assembly passes one budget a year, but this is not enacted in primary legislation in the same way.

Government bills dominate the devolved legislatures

The devolved legislatures were designed to be more inclusive than Westminster, and to enable members from all parties to contribute to the legislative process. The architects of the Scottish Parliament in particular wanted the new parliament to be less dominated by the Executive than Westminster. Their vision was of a parliament that embodied the sharing of power between the Executive, the legislature and the people.[14] In all the legislatures, procedures were established to enable members and committees to introduce legislation of their own.

In practice, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have introduced a slightly higher share of the bills that became law (87% and 88% respectively) than the UK Government (84%). Even during periods of minority government, the government in question has sponsored the bulk of the legislation. For instance, the minority SNP Government of 2007 to 2011, which held just 47 of 129 seats (36%), introduced 82% of the bills that became law.* This suggests that ambitions to reduce executive dominance have not fully been realised. In 2011, a major study of the Scottish Parliament similarly found that both majority and minority governments have been able to dominate the Parliament.[15] Our findings indicate that this is still true for Scotland and has also been true for Wales since the devolution of primary legislative power.

Members' bills make up just 10% of Scottish and 7% of Welsh primary legislation, compared with 16% of UK legislation. Unlike in Westminster, committees in the devolved legislatures can also introduce legislation. Committees have introduced seven successful bills in Scotland and one successful bill in Wales. In Wales, the Assembly Commission - a cross-party body responsible for the administration of the Welsh Assembly - has also introduced two bills that have become law. In February 2019, the Commission also introduced the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, which aims to reduce the voting age for elections to the Assembly to 16 and to rename the Assembly the Senedd (or Welsh Parliament in English).[16] However, concerns have been raised that the volume of non-government legislation has been lower than initially expected. In 2017, a commission set up to review the performance of the Scottish Parliament warned that it had "heard concerns that overall the members' bills process has not been as widely used as was originally envisaged", partly because the Scottish Government is able to stop members' bills from progressing if it or the UK Government wants to introduce legislation to give effect to the same proposal.[17] The fact that members' bills make up a low proportion of all Scottish and Welsh legislation may indicate that ambitions to promote backbench and committee participation in the legislative process have not fully been realised.

In the Northern Ireland Assembly, the larger parties form a mandatory coalition together. Backbenchers and committees may also introduce bills. Over this period, the Northern Ireland Executive passed 92% of public legislation. Fewer members' bills and committee bills have passed the Northern Ireland Assembly than the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly, perhaps because members from most parties are represented in the Executive. However, before the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2017, an unprecedented number of members' bills were proposed: members proposed 19 bills between May and October 2016, compared with 25 in the period between 2011 and 2016.[18]

*Excluding private legislation (Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament only).

Government bills are more likely to pass in the devolved legislatures - and so are members' bills

In all four UK legislatures, the vast majority of government bills introduced into the legislature reach the statute book. But government bills in the devolved legislatures are less likely to fall than those in Westminster. A total of 31 government bills (5%) introduced into the UK Parliament between 1997 and 2017 failed to become law, mostly often because time ran out for the bill at the end of the parliamentary session, which is normally just a year long. In the devolved legislatures, sessions run for the four or five years between scheduled elections, giving governments more time to get their legislative programmes through. Very few government bills in Scotland and Wales have failed to become law. This happened four times (1.9% of all government bills) in Scotland between 1997 and 2016 and just once in Wales (2.3% of all government bills). In Northern Ireland, 30 government bills have failed to become law (16% of all government bills). However, in all but five cases this was because the bills were lost when power-sharing collapsed.

Members' bills introduced in the devolved legislatures are also more likely to be passed than private members' bills at Westminster. This is because the devolved legislatures set a higher bar for the initial introduction of members' bills. At Westminster, any Member of Parliament (MP) can choose to introduce a bill, but few get very far: just 5% of bills introduced between 1997 and 2017 became law. In the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, a member must be able to show that their proposed bill has cross-party support before it is introduced. In Scotland, the member must gain support for their bill from at least 18 other members from at least a half of the other parties for it to be introduced.[22] In Wales, the member must first enter their proposed bill into a ballot. When the bill is selected, the Welsh Assembly votes on whether it should be introduced.[23] Unlike at Westminster, staff services are routinely made available to help members formulate proposals for and draft their bills: the Non-Government Bills Unit in the Scottish Parliament is available to help members who want to develop a bill proposal, while in Wales a team of officials is assigned to help draft a bill once the Assembly votes that it can be introduced.[24] In Scotland, 24 members' bills (40% of the 60 introduced) have become law, and in Wales four out of eight (50%) became law. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly do not have to gain cross-party support to introduce bills, and are offered access to the drafting service on a first-come, first-served basis.[25] Of the 29 Northern Ireland members' bills introduced, 10 (34%) have become law.

The devolved legislatures can only pass legislation on matters that are not reserved to Westminster and that are compatible with European Union (EU) law and the European Convention on Human Rights.[26] When a bill is introduced, the presiding officer must certify that they believe it is within devolved competence. After a bill is passed, there is a four-week period in which the legislature's competence to pass it can be challenged in the courts before the bill receives Royal Assent.[27]

Most recently, the UK Government referred the Scottish and Welsh Governments' bills to incorporate EU law into devolved law after Brexit to the Supreme Court. The Welsh Government withdrew its bill - the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill 2018 - after reaching agreement with the UK Government, but the Scottish Government did not. In December 2018, the Supreme Court found that large parts of the Scottish Government's bill - the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill 2018 - were outside devolved competence due to the passage of the UK's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.[31] In April 2019, the Scottish Government confirmed that it would not be bringing back the bill to be amended in line with the court's ruling, but would bring back the bill's provisions on keeping pace with EU law in new legislation.[32]

*Between the start of the 2017 Parliament and the end of March 2019, the UK Government was defeated 14 times in the House of Commons (excluding Opposition Days). Not all of these defeats were on legislation.

There are fewer members to scrutinise the Government in the devolved legislatures

The devolved legislatures are much smaller than the UK Parliament, and have no second chamber. This means there are fewer members to fill government posts, and fewer members to scrutinise the government in the chamber and committees. This may contribute to the greater ability of the devolved governments to pass legislation.

A larger proportion of members of the devolved legislatures are in the government in Scotland and Wales than at Westminster. In the House of Commons, 15% of MPs are members of the government, while 20% of the 129 members of the Scottish Parliament and 23% of the 60 members of the Welsh Assembly are also ministers. This reflects the smaller size of the devolved bodies. Governments should be able to rely on ministers to support them in votes.[33] The large size of the governments, in proportional terms, in both Scotland and Wales may make it easier for the governing parties to maintain party discipline and to keep control even when they do not have a majority.

In the Northern Ireland Assembly, the number of ministers is fixed in legislation, rather than being left to the discretion of the governing parties. Just 10% of members were in the Northern Ireland Executive when it collapsed in January 2017. This was because there were only two junior ministers, compared with 16 now in Scotland and five in Wales. But for ministers in Northern Ireland, the bigger challenge is usually reaching agreement with their coalition partners, rather than maintaining party discipline.

In all the UK's legislatures, non-government members have two main ways to scrutinise the government: in the chamber and in committees. At Westminster, the UK Government usually decides what the House of Commons will debate and determines the scheduling of time set aside for opposition and backbench business. The architects of the devolved legislatures established business committees for representatives from different parties to set the agenda for debates and to agree on the time to be spent on non-government business. The intention, in the Scottish case at least, was "that the arrangements for the programming of business in the Scottish Parliament should be inclusive and transparent".[34] In 2010, the House of Commons Reform Committee called for a similar business committee to be introduced at Westminster.[35]

It is not clear whether the existence of business committees changes the proportion of time spent on government business. While full data on the use of time is not available for the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, we estimate that in 2017/18 the Scottish Parliament spent a little less time on government business (35% compared with 38%) and a little more time on backbench business (26% compared with 23%) than the House of Commons.[36]*

Moreover, committees that have a large number of bills to consider may not have enough time to devote to conducting inquiries. Between 1999 and 2007, the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee was split into two separate committees to deal with its heavy legislative workload. Concerns remain that in some cases committees are not as effective as they could be because they have too much legislation to consider. The 2017 Commission on Parliamentary Reform also reported concerns that "some committees have seen so much legislation they have been unable to develop their own agenda with fewer opportunities to hold inquiries or focus on long-term or cross-cutting issues".[40]

The small size of the devolved legislatures means that almost all members who are not in the government sit on committees. In the House of Commons, we estimate that 45% of members sit on scrutiny committees. By contrast, 64% of members of the Scottish Parliament, 70% of Welsh Assembly members and 80% of Northern Ireland Assembly members sit on committees. To ensure that all committee seats are filled, members of the devolved legislatures often have to sit on more than one committee. This raises questions about committee effectiveness, since members who sit on more than one committee have less time to develop subject expertise or to contribute to any particular committee's work.[41] In the House of Commons, only 9% of MPs sit on two or more scrutiny committees. In the Scottish Parliament, 24% of members sit on two or more scrutiny committees, and 22% of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly were on two committees when power-sharing collapsed in January 2017. The Northern Ireland Assembly was reduced in size from 108 to 90 from the March 2017 election, although it has not operated since then. If devolution is restored, the proportion of members who sit on multiple committees is likely to increase.

*One reason why the UK Parliament spent less time on backbench business was that the UK Government did not double the amount of backbench time available to reflect the double length of the session (see Lilly A, White A and Haigh J, Parliamentary Monitor 2018, Institute for Government, 2018, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IFGJ6416-Parliamentary-Monitor-Report-2018-1808-WEB-FINAL.pdf).

The veto designed to protect community interests in Northern Ireland has proven controversial

Northern Ireland Assembly members have tabled 159 petitions of concern in total since 1999, on motions, clauses of and amendments to bills, and whole bills.[48] In almost every case where a petition has been tabled, the 30 required members have been found to support it. Fourteen bills have been affected by a petition of concern, and four bills have fallen outright because of one.*

The petition of concern process has been used on a range of different issues, including votes on issues of symbolic importance to one community or the other. For example, in 2001, members used a petition of concern to block a Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) motion that Easter lilies, a nationalist symbol, should not be displayed at Stormont.[49] In other cases, members have used a petition of concern on contested policy questions. In November 2015, a majority of Northern Ireland Assembly members voted in favour of same-sex marriage, but the DUP used a petition of concern to stop the proposal from being approved.[50]

The use of the petition of concern has changed over time, increasing sharply in the 2011-16 mandate. At the 2007 election, the DUP won 30 seats - enough to table a petition of concern successfully without the support of other parties. In 2011, the DUP's representation rose to 36 seats, and between 2011 and 2016 the DUP alone tabled 82 of 115 petitions of concern (71%). Other parties had to work together to table successful petitions of concern.

In 2012, the Northern Ireland Executive introduced a Welfare Reform Bill replicating new UK welfare policy. In 2014, Sinn Féin raised objections to the bill and tabled a number of amendments. The DUP used a petition of concern 47 times to block these amendments. When the bill reached the final vote, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) decided to join Sinn Féin in a petition of concern. Together, they brought down the whole bill on a cross-community vote. The UK Treasury fined the Executive for failing to comply with budgetary rules and the Executive and Assembly eventually agreed that the legislation should be taken through Westminster instead.[51]

The major parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly have all expressed dissatisfaction with how the petition of concern process works. In November 2015, the two main parties signed the Fresh Start Agreement.[52] This included a proposed protocol on the use of the petition of concern. Under this protocol, members would agree only to table petitions of concern in exceptional circumstances and would provide a written explanation of why they believed it would be detrimental to hold a simple majority vote. However, the Fresh Start Agreement has not been fully implemented. At the 2017 election, the size of the Assembly was reduced from 108 to 90 members. The reduction in Assembly numbers makes it harder for any single party to get the 30 signatures needed for a petition of concern on its own. This reduces the risk of the petition of concern being used for party-political ends. But the parties are still divided on what should be done about the process.

Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland have each put forward proposals on restricting the use of the petition of concern to issues of community relations and constitutional arrangements, while the DUP has argued for the system of cross- community voting to be scrapped altogether.[53] To restore a sustainable power-sharing Executive, the parties will need to reach consensus on whether the petition of concern is fit for purpose and on whether and how it should be reformed.

*The Local Government (Disqualification) Bill and the Victims and Survivors (Disqualification) Bill in 2010, and the Welfare Reform Bill and the Rates (Relief for Community Amateur Sports Clubs) Bill in 2015.

The devolved legislatures cost more per person than the UK Parliament

The legislatures created in 1999 have enabled elected representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to pass distinct legislation for each nation, and offered citizens greater opportunities for democratic expression. This comes at an additional financial cost to the public, on top of the cost of the UK Parliament. The creation and operation of the devolved legislatures are an entirely new cost from devolution, unlike the devolved administrations, which primarily inherited functions and spending programmes that had previously been part of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.

In 2017/18, the total operating expenditure of the Scottish Parliament was £99 million (m), while the Welsh Assembly cost £55m to run and the Northern Ireland Assembly £37m (although the Northern Ireland Assembly did not sit in this period).*

The costs of the devolved legislatures are considerably less than the £533m spent on running the UK Parliament. However, the cost per citizen represented is higher for the devolved legislatures. The cost of the UK Parliament per citizen represented is £8.10 a year, compared with £18.25 for the Scottish Parliament, £17.50 for the Welsh Assembly and £19.70 for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

However, the costs of the devolved legislatures represent a very small proportion of the total devolved budgets. Spending on each of the devolved legislatures makes up between 0.3% and 0.4% of the devolved budgets.[54]

Members of the devolved legislatures are paid less than MPs. The basic salary for an MP is £79,468 a year.[55] Members of the Scottish Parliament are paid £63,579 a year and members of the Welsh Assembly are paid slightly more, at £67,649 a year.[56] However, the total bill for members' salaries is lower in Wales because the Welsh Assembly has fewer members. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are still paid a salary even though the Assembly is not currently sitting.[57] This is because members still carry out constituency and other duties. When power-sharing collapsed in January 2017, the basic members' salary was £49,000,[58] but in September 2018 the UK Government passed legislation to reduce this to £35,888 from January 2019.[59]

It is important both for efficiency and for public trust in the political process that the legislatures face robust scrutiny on whether they are using public money as effectively as they can. However, the running costs of legislatures are a relatively small public expenditure, especially given the potential benefits of better scrutiny and democratic accountability: the expert panel that recommended that the size of the Welsh Assembly should be increased concluded that "even marginal improvements in the scrutiny of Welsh Government spending and policy decisions will reap significant dividends to the taxpayer."[63] Most of the devolved budgets are spent on public services by the devolved governments. In the next chapter, we consider how the governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are organised and how they have changed since 1999.

*The total operating expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly was 10% lower in 2017/18 than in 2016/17, in part because of the collapse of power-sharing and in part because of the reduction in Assembly numbers after the 2017 election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The creation of new legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast marked the beginning of the new era of devolution. They were designed to give expression to the distinct identities of the devolved nations and to foster a more collaborative, consensus-based politics than at Westminster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Welsh Assembly basically democratises the existing functions of the Secretary of State for Wales, while the powers of the proposed Scottish Parliament are far more extensive than those of the Scottish Secretary. These differences will become most apparent if there is, for example, a Conservative…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Devolution: What is it and how does it work across the UK?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments will be held on 6 May.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

constitutionalism, doctrine that a government's authority is determined by a body of laws or constitution. Although constitutionalism is sometimes regarded as a synonym for limited government, that is only one interpretation and by no means the most prominent one historically. More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.

At its most generic level, arbitrariness consists in the capacity of rulers to govern willfully-that is, with complete discretion-and to serve their own interests rather than those of the ruled. Constitutionalism attempts to avoid these dangers by designing mechanisms that determine who can rule, how, and for what purposes. However, constitutional traditions differ as to what precisely counts as an arbitrary act and which mechanisms offer the best defense against arbitrary acts occurring. The classical republican tradition, as related by its neorepublican interpreters to political constitutionalism, identifies arbitrariness with domination of the ruled by their rulers and seeks to avoid it by establishing a condition of political equality characterized by a balance of power between all the relevant groups and parties within a polity, so that no one can rule without consulting the interests of the ruled. The more modern, liberal tradition identifies arbitrariness with interference with individual rights and seeks to establish protections for them via the separation of powers and a judicially protected constitution.

Both traditions are present within most democracies and can be found side by side in many constitutions. The first tradition focuses on the design and functioning of the democratic process, including the selection of electoral systems and the choice between presidential or parliamentary forms of government, of unitary or federal arrangements, and of unicameralism or bicameralism. Although the detailing of these procedural mechanisms and the relations between them usually forms the bulk of most constitutional documents, their constitutional importance has come to be eclipsed-in legal circles particularly-by the second tradition. This view emphasizes the specification and judicial protection of the different competences of the political system and of constitutionally entrenched rights by a constitutional court. Political theorists and scientists disagree, however, on whether these two traditions are complementary, mutually entailed, or incompatible. The second is often seen as necessary to ensure the fairness of the procedures and/or the outcomes of the first. Yet it lays itself open in turn to doubts about whether courts are, or could ever be, truly bound by constitutions so that law rather than judges rule and, if so, whether judicial processes are not more arbitrary and prone to error for deciding constitutional outcomes than the democratic procedures and outcomes they are often thought to legitimately limit. In the following sections, this entry traces these two traditions and then turns to exploring their respective advantages and disadvantages and any tensions and complementarities that exist between them.

Two traditions of constitutionalism

Political constitutionalism: from mixed government to representative democracy

The theory of mixed government originated with ancient thought and the classification of political systems on the basis of whether one, a few, or many ruled. According to this theory, the three basic types of polity-monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy-were liable to degenerate into tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy, respectively. This corruption stemmed from the concentration of power in the hands of a single person or group, which created a temptation to its abuse through allowing arbitrary rule. The solution was to ensure moderation and proportion by combining or mixing various types. As a result, the virtues of each form of government, namely, a strong executive, the involvement of the "better" elements of society, and popular legitimacy, theoretically could be obtained without the corresponding vices.

Three elements underlie this classic theory of mixed government. First, arbitrary power was defined as the capacity of one individual or group to dominate another-that is, to possess the ability to rule them without consulting their interests. To be dominated in such an arbitrary way was to be reduced to the condition of a slave who must act as his or her master wills. Overcoming arbitrariness so conceived requires that a condition of political equality exist among all free citizens. Only then will no one person or group be able to think or act as the master of others. Second, the means to minimize such domination was to ensure that no one could rule without the support of at least one other individual or body. The aim was to so mix social classes and factions in decision making to ensure that their interests were given equal consideration, with each being forced to "hear the other side." To quote another republican motto, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance," with each group watching over the others to ensure that none of them dominated the other by ignoring their concerns. Third, the balance to be achieved was one that aspired to harmonize different social interests and maintain the stability of the polity, preventing so far as was possible the inevitable degeneration into one of the corrupt forms of government.

Thus, mixed government provides a model of constitutionalism according to the institutions that structure the way decisions are taken. Although elements of the theory can be found in Aristotle's Politics, the locus classicus is Book VI of Polybius's Histories. He underlined its prime purpose as providing mechanisms whereby no individual, body, or group could rule alone, thereby curbing the descent into tyranny, oligarchy, or anarchy. Polybius regarded the republican constitution of ancient Rome as exemplifying this theory. Thus, the consuls (highest of the ordinary magistracies in the ancient Roman Republic) provided the monarchical element, the Senate provided the aristocratic, while the popular element was represented by the Tribunes of the People, the Plebeian Council, and the electoral, judicial, and legislative powers the people could exercise directly. As he noted, the key feature of Roman republican government was that each of these three groups exercised slightly different powers but required the cooperation of the others to do so. So consuls might exercise war powers, yet they needed the Senate to approve generals, reward them, and provide the necessary funds, whereas the people approved treaties and could try high officials and generals for misconduct. Meanwhile, the more-executive roles possessing the most discretion were further weakened by their power being shared among multiple officeholders and its being dependent on elections and of short duration. Thus, there were two consuls, each able to veto the other's decisions; 10 tribunes with similar countervailing powers; and so on, with none able to hold office for more than a year.

The resulting need for different groups to work together was summarized in the slogan Senatus Populusque Romanus ("The Senate and the Roman People," frequently abbreviated to SPQR). In reality, though, their relationship was far from harmonious, with the patrician element largely predominating, except when factional disputes led a given group among them to seek the support of the plebeians (the general citizenry). The conflict between social classes was given greater emphasis by Niccolò Machiavelli, who offered a radical version of the Polybian argument in his Discorsi. He observed how all polities contain two classes, the nobles ( grandi) and the people ( popolo), whose desires conflict. However, he claimed that their discord, far from being destructive, actively promoted "all the laws made in favour of liberty"-each was led to promote freedom by virtue of seeking ways of checking the arbitrary power of the other. However, like Polybius, Machiavelli believed that all systems ultimately become corrupt and degenerate into either tyranny or anarchy-the balance of power merely serving to stave off this inevitable cycle.

The 17th and 18th centuries brought three main changes to the doctrine. The first, explored below, was the development of the separation of powers as a variation on the doctrine of mixed government. The theory of mixed government involves no clear distinction between the different branches of government. Executive, legislative, and especially judicial tasks were shared between the different social classes and exercised by all the government bodies. Indeed, the popular element exercised certain legislative and judicial functions directly through plebiscites and as jurors. The second change was in the type of "balance" mixed government was supposed to achieve. The classic theory took the idea of the "body" politic literally. Just as bodily health was said to rely on a sound physical constitution and a balanced diet and way of life, so the health of the polity depended on a sound constitution that achieved a "natural" balance between the various organs and "humors" of the political body. As we saw, in line with this organic imagery, the aim was to hold off the inevitable degeneration and corruption of the system. Balance was a static equilibrium, designed to maintain the status quo. However, the 17th and 18th centuries saw a new, more dynamic notion of balance, inspired by Newtonian physics and based on mechanics and physical forces. In this conception, balance could involve a harnessing of opposed forces, holding them in a dynamic equilibrium that combined and increased their joint power. The change can be seen in the notion of the "balance of trade," which went from being an equal exchange of goods between states to a competition between trading nations that encouraged their mutual productivity and innovation. In this account, the "cycle of life," where growth was followed by decay, became replaced by the idea of progress, in which change and transformation had positive connotations.

The third development drew on the first two. This was the idea that political balance now consisted of the competition between government and a "loyal" opposition. As parties evolved from simple factions and patronage networks among rivals for office to electoral machines defined as much by ideology and social composition as by the personal ambitions and interests of the political class, they became the organs of this new type of balance. In keeping with the older theory of mixed government, one of the virtues of parties was their ability to mix different social classes and interests and combine them around a common program. Indeed, just as economic competition led rival firms to compete over price, innovate, and explore untapped markets, so electoral competition led rival parties to compete over policy efficiency and effectiveness, devise novel forms of delivery, and focus on areas appealing to different sections of the electorate. This modern form of political constitutionalism has proven constitutional in both form and substance. Equal votes, majority rule, and competitive party elections offer a mechanism for impartially and equitably weighing and combining the views of millions of citizens about the nature of the public good. And in making politicians popularly accountable, it gives them an incentive to rule in nonarbitrary ways that respond to the concerns of the different minorities that form any working majority, thereby upholding both rights and the public interest rather than their own interests.

Meanwhile, mixed government has developed in new ways through federal and convocational arrangements that likewise seek to ensure that different kinds of interest are involved in the policy- and lawmaking processes on an equal basis. Yet nobody would deny that the systems of most democracies are far from perfect, and it has become increasingly common to look to other constitutional traditions to rectify these problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
constitutionalism, doctrine that a government's authority is determined by a body of laws or constitution. Although constitutionalism is sometimes regarded as a synonym for limited government, that is only one interpretation and by no means the most prominent one historically. More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Parliament - House of Lords & House of Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
British Parliament - the House of Lords and the House of Commons - is the legislative body of the United Kingdom and meets in the Palace of Westminster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The monarchy remains a subject of controversy across the globe' • FRANCE 24 English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Several countries call for reparations from King Charles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Commonwealth Countries Pull Away From The Crown?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Returns To The Sofa To Announce New NHS Initiative | This Morning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch: King Charles’s first speech in full

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
King Charles III gives his first speech as monarch after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the future of the British monarchy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
n the ancient history of 2007 Gordon Brown stood up in parliament to give his first speech as prime minister. His theme was "reinvigorating Britishness", and he offered a series of policies to promote the idea.

Prominent among them was the plan to end the 1924 edict that allowed the union jack only to be flown from public buildings on 18 designated days a year, including the Queen's birthday and Remembrance Day. Instead, Brown announced, all public buildings were to be encouraged to fly the red, white and blue at all times, including schools, hospitals, prisons and police stations.

"The union flag is one of the most recognisable symbols of the UK," Brown's proposals argued, "but while in other countries, such as France and the United States, the national flag is regarded as a source of pride, in recent years the union flag has all too often become the preserve of political extremists, a symbol of discordrather than harmony. It is critical that this symbol is not hijacked by those who seek to work against values of tolerance and respect."

The following day, as flags were hoisted over all government ministries, one unnamed Labour MP was widely quoted in the papers as saying: "I can see the array of flags from my window looking over Whitehall. It is an arresting sight and makes me proud to be British."

Brown toured the TV studios to argue that the flag symbolised British values of "liberty, a sense of responsibility, fairness". He also proposed that all school children in England, Scotland and Wales should be required to pledge an oath of allegiance to Great Britain and her flag, in special ceremonies.

Looking back, this speech prompts a few thoughts. The first is, had Twitter been a thing at all in 2007 - it had only just been launched at the time of Brown's government - it would have no doubt lit up with polarised outrage at these ideas, from the left as the "so-called" socialist prime minister draped himself in patriotism, and from the right as New Labour once again reimagined traditionally conservative clothes. As it was, the ideas were broadly welcomed.

The speech is also a reminder of Brown's prescient instincts as a politician - as well as a characteristically blunt way of addressing them. As a Scottish prime minister of the UK, perhaps the last, he understood only too well the potential fracturing of the union. He saw, optimistically, in his British citizenship ideas an opportunity to channel the unruly forces of nationalism to emphasise a sense of belonging in which different layers of individual identity - local, regional, national, European - could be celebrated.

In the event, none of these policies came to pass. Flags continued to fly over buildings much as before, there were no citizenship ceremonies, and the expression of the kind of inclusive patriotism that Brown had in mind was undone by the banking crash and the divisive efforts to avert disaster that followed.

Fast forward to last week, and the announcement of the near-identical plans of Boris Johnson's government to hoist the union flag over all of our civic buildings as an expression of national pride. Where a decade ago these proposals might credibly have looked like gestures toward national harmony, now they seemed designed to emphasise discord.

To the nationalists in Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland has its own flag laws), the policy was characterised as another thrown gauntlet from Westminster. To those who prevailed in the EU referendum, and to those who lost, it had the appearance of another victory parade. As ever, with the baggy symbols of sovereignty, context is all. It was hard to ignore the fact that the proposals for this more visible and insistent patriotism, came on the same day that Priti Patel's Home Office announced measures to harden borders and enact further hostility to refugees fleeing persecution. The flag seemed to be hoisted not in the spirit of what Brown called tolerance, but as an emblem of cultural retrenchment and fortification.

It is tempting to imagine these battle lines of the "culture wars" as inventions of Brexit and social media. Nick Groom's book The Union Jack, an illuminating history of the national flag, argues that such conflicts have been fought with different levels of intensity since the flag's constituent parts were first sewn together in 1801. What the more strident voices of the internet currently like to characterise as "flag-shagging" - that apparently un-British arms race of union jack backdrops - was already a national sport in Edwardian times, when the poet laureate of empire Alfred Austin wrote of how:

Its folds to all of Friendship speak,
Of enmity to none,
Protection for the wronged and weak,
Wherever shines the sun.
And when the 'Union Jack' is seen
Rippling o'er wave and wind,
Men hail it, for its tidings mean
Peace unto all Mankind.

The challenge of "progressive" politics has always been to find alternative threads of symbolism to that sentimental imperial fallacy.

The Wilson government of the 1960s took advantage of the pop art, mod fashion and minis of the Swinging Sixties, to reimagine the national flag as a modern cultural symbol as wartime memories receded. Whatever you thought of Cool Britannia, the identification of the flag with the spirit of Britpop - Ginger Spice, Liam Gallagher and his union jack duvet - was an expert exercise in gently detoxifying the flag-waving jingoism of the Falklands years. New Labour believed it had mastered the trick of having the union jack be something for everyone - a bit of fashion fun and a solemn symbol of Remembrance. Peter Mandelson believed they had "reclaimed the flag... as a symbol of confidence and unity for all the peoples and ethnic communities of a diverse and outward-looking Britain."

The high point of that relaxed inclusivity seemed to come with the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics, which captured a playful patriotic tone and wove it into an emotional history of struggle and sacrifice and commonality, one that set the stage for the unifying heroics of Team GB that followed.

One way of looking at the currents of the national story since then is to remind yourself that even as that pageant played out there were Conservative voices deriding its spirit as "multicultural crap", who were made profoundly uncomfortable by the vision of a diverse nation at ease with itself, and who apparently didn't want to cheer on athletes of all heritages and backgrounds in British vests.

I remember eavesdropping on a particular conversation I overheard in a queue at the Tory party conference (at which I was reporting on the bizarre rise of Jacob Rees-Mogg). One woman had what she called objective proof that Boris Johnson would make a fabulous prime minister. It lay in the fact that the decibel level at the Olympic stadium had been loudest when Johnson, as mayor of London, waved the union jack to open the Games ("much louder than when Mo whatever-his-name-is won his medals"). The thoughts of that woman have, post-Brexit, appeared to harden into a governing philosophy.

It is that same voice that is raised in outrage at the mention of the battle hymn Rule, Britannia! being dropped from the Last Night of the Proms, or which angrily proclaims that "All Lives Matter". It scours the television schedules for evidence of perceived metropolitan sneering at British traditions and institutions. In the run-up to the announcement about flags, it made a national incident of the mild sarcasm of the BBC Breakfast presenters Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty about the flag and portrait of the Queen in the Zoom background of Robert Jenrick, the housing minister.

In the week that marked a year and 140,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, this headline-generating "row" was further stoked by the Tory MP James Wild who confronted Tim Davie, incoming director general of the BBC, with the news that the corporation's annual report featured not a single union jack. Davie suggested he did not recognise "that particular metric". But the point had been made. No doubt he will make sure that next year's report is suitable beflagged - just as he made sure that Munchetty, guilty of giggling at the size of Jenrick's flag, was required to formally apologise for liking a tweet that referenced it.

There remains a sense that Britain was, until quite recently, a nation that could quite happily have united around that giggle, knowing that it was directed not against the flag or the monarchy, but against the vanities of the government minister and his props. Performative patriotism is a trait that the British have long lampooned, from Colonel Blimp railing at foreigners in his bathtub, to Captain Mainwaring struggling to assert his status in Walmington-on-Sea, to the desperate efforts of politicians on Yes Minister or The Thick of It, to be more patriotic than thou.

In response to the video of Wild questioning Davie, former Conservative MP Anna Soubry tweeted that "the toes of sensible Tories will be curling up to their knees", but the party she once imagined herself to belong to has, it seems, long gone. The one that has replaced it knows there are votes in such calculated acts of patriotic earnestness, toe-curling or not.

Attacks on perceived metropolitan disloyalty at the BBC are nothing new for government ministers, but for the corporation the stakes have been raised by the sanctioning of two new competing cable broadcasters that come pre-festooned in red, white and blue, News UK and GB News. Andrew Neil, chairman of the latter, lost no time in jumping into the fray about Stayt and Munchetty's giggles: "Sometimes the BBC forgets what the first B stands for." The flag, we were led to believe, will be no laughing matter on GB News.

The cracks in national unity that such arguments seek to expose are long established. Eighty years ago last week, at the most desperate juncture of a war of a very different kind, George Orwell identified exactly the divide that the government now seeks to deepen.

"In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman," Orwell wrote. "If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack... It is obvious that this preposterous convention cannot continue. The Bloomsbury highbrow, with his mechanical snigger, is as out-of-date as the cavalry colonel. A modern nation cannot afford either of them. Patriotism and intelligence will have to come together again."

The Attlee government rose to that challenge by selling the post-war reconstruction of Britain with a combination of socialism and patriotism, making Blake's mystical poem of blood and soil, Jerusalem, the anthem of its reforming zeal. How exactly to achieve that balance in 2021 is a question with which this opposition is struggling, and with which the government knows it is struggling.

The leaked strategy document which suggested Labour must make "use of the [union] flag, veterans and dressing smartly" to help it win back the trust of disillusioned voters in the crumbled "red wall" of the north, was widely ridiculed by the supporters of the previous leader, (who felt himself unable to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial service). The ironies of the government's current efforts to wrap itself in the flag are not hard to identify - they come at a time when Brexit has made the dissolution of the union more likely than ever, when the armed forces are subject to severe cuts, when questions are widely asked about the flag fluttering over the nation's 2,200 food banks - but history suggests that if the opposition is to regain those lost seats, it will need to do so with its own union flags to hand, and a very clear vision of the alternative values that they might represent.

As in any war, even a cultural one, there will no doubt be a few commercial winners as this battle plays out. On Thursday morning I called one of the handful of traditional British businesses who are set to profit from the new union jack proposals. The Flagmakers company, based in Derbyshire, has been in business since the first year of the reign of Queen Victoria, when a young entrepreneur called George Tootle walked from Yorkshire to London to set up a business making banners for friendly societies and Methodist groups. He quickly realised there might be an alternative and steadier line of business in hand-sewn union flags.

Since then Flagmakers flags have been to both poles, they were there at the D-day landings and at the coronation. Looking back at the accounts of the business, managing director Paul Noble suggests, is an exercise in patriotic history. During the first world war the company was making £1.5m in flag sales. It is, though, traditionally a cyclical business, driven by World Cups, jubilees - and now, it seems, by culture wars. In an average month Flagmakers might sell 2,000 union flags of all shapes and sizes. When Noble looked at his online sales the morning after the government's announcement, there had already been a doubling of normal volume.

There will also, Noble suggests, be an obvious knock-on effect of the requirement to fly the flag 24/7 rather just on ceremonial days.

As it stands the interruptions allow the flags to be taken down every month or so to be laundered and maintained ("if you leave a dishcloth on a line for three months how does it look?"). The new arrangement will require at least one spare, and an overnight replacement regime.

Noble is not sure how the directive will affect business over the coming years, but one thing is certain, he says: "There's going to be thousands of public officials up and down the land who have now got another thing on their to-do list."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patriot games: why flying the union jack has become so contentious

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Politicians of all stripes have long pressed the national flag into service to unite the nation. Now its use as a stage prop or on official buildings is divisive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether draped around Olympic athletes or the focus of protests in Northern Ireland, flags are powerful symbols of identity and belonging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Nations Make Up National Identities | NYT - The Interpreter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the future of the British monarchy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rishi Sunak refuses to apologise for Britain's slavery record

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Britain need a written constitution after Brexit?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The approach of this book is threefold. First of all, it looks at the strike through three lenses, class, community and family. Secondly, it is a local and regional approach, a close study of certain mining communities in the context of their region. Thirdly, it is an oral history approach, using interviews with a number of key miners, miners' wives and supporters to allow the story of the strike to be told through the rich experiences of a selected cast of characters.

Miners forged their sense of themselves as the shock troops of the Industrial Revolution. They were the bringers of fire who enabled steam locomotion, iron and steel production, engineering, railways and transcontinental shipping. Their underground work was elemental, as they pitted themselves against earth, air, fire and water, and highly dangerous. Rock falls, gas explosions, flooding and injuries from moving machinery were all too frequent and often took many lives. Camaraderie was a watchword: they looked out for each other in the dangerous work below; their lives depended on it.

As much as they were producers, the quintessential homo faber, above ground miners were also fighters. They were all members of the union, which took care of their pay and pension and organised compensation in the event of injury or industrial sickness. The strike was the miners' main weapon, and immediately provoked confrontation with employers, who were also ready to use the lockout to break miners' resistance. Flying pickets like military detachments were organised to force out miners at other pits. Never to cross a picket line was a question of honour. The worst insults were used against strike-breakers - blacklegs, scabs - and at the limit violence was used against them. The tragedy of the Miners' Strike was that picketing did less to unite the strikers than to divide them.

An alternative source of miners' solidarity derived from the communities they lived in. These communities were often at some distance from towns and cities with their concentrations of other workers. The comradeship of miners developed underground continued about ground - slaking their thirst in the Miners' Welfare, playing football or rugby, meeting local girls at the Welfare or rugby club. Meanwhile the mining community policed itself. Men and women were required to behave according to certain norms, and if children misbehaved their parents would know about it by the time they got home. From the 1960s, however, as pit closures set in, miners were redeployed to more efficient mines outside their area. They became travelling miners, living in villages which had a large proportion of miners but transported to the pit by bus or increasingly driving their own cars. In other cases, particularly in the Midlands, the mining village scarcely existed. Miners lived scattered across a wide radius and this clearly diminished camaraderie and solidarity.

Wherever they lived, of course, miners had miners' families. They generally married young and had many of children. Their job was considered one for life and the pay was customarily a family wage. Often the first child was conceived out of wedlock, making marriage necessary; to abandon the pregnant girlfriend was not an option in mining communities. Miners had to demonstrate their masculinity. This was defined by being a breadwinner, a fighter, and a man who controlled his womenfolk. Miners were men; the only women employed at the pit were cooks, cleaners or office staff. However, the setup was more matriarchal than might be imagined. Women ran the home and often took control of the pay packet, giving their man pocket money for drink and cigarettes. During the strike women came into their own, as we have seen, organising and staffing support groups, setting up soup kitchens, packing food parcels, raising funds, speaking in public, even joining picket lines. Many women emerged from the strike in a much stronger place that their husbands who had lost the fight and would soon lose their jobs. If the miners' wife did well, generally the children also did well, going to university and getting a professional job. There are signs, however, that this was gendered too, with daughters of miners doing better than their brothers.

The intention at the outset of the project, was to focus on a fixed number of mining villages, one for each coalfield. These mining villages will as far as possible be at the centre of the study, but the fact that as pits closed miners moved to other pits and sometimes moved house too meant that the 'pit village' was far from universal. A wider context needs to be adopted in which the mining villages provide the foci but across which the connections are often much wider.

In South Wales, the initial focus is on Onllwyn, at the head of the Dulais Valley. Here, however, the pit closed in 1962 so the miners worked further afield, down the Dulais Valley to Blaenant and Treforgan collieries, into the Swansea Valley at Abernant or over to Aberpergwm in the Neath Valley. Onllwyn stood at the intersection between 'Welsh Wales,' farming, rural and Welsh-speaking and 'American Wales', industrial, urbanised and English-speaking. In the former the Swansea, Dulais and Neath Valleys flowed south and west to the coast at Swansea and Neath. In the much-bleaker 'American Wales' the large and small Rhondda Valleys, the Cynon Valley and Taff Vale flowed east and south to their junction at Pontypridd, the regional capital of the NUM, and on to the sea at Cardiff. The Afan Valley flowing east to west to Port Talbot, provided something of a link between them.

In South Yorkshire, the focus is on Askern, a mining village to the north of Doncaster, where the pit functioned until 1991. However, Doncaster was the centre of an arc of pits including Bentley Hatfield. Around Barnsley in the west, the base of the Yorkshire miners, was a constellation of pits including Worsborough, Dodworth, Gawber, Woolley, Grimethorpe and South Elmsall. Sheffield, in the south, was the national headquarters of the NUM but mainly a steel town and a cosmopolitan regional capital, a focus for activists who supported the Miners' Strike rather than of miners themselves.

In County Durham the focus is on Chester-le-Street, where the pits at Pelton Fell and South Pelaw closed in the 1960s but which acted as a turntable between the inland plateau and the coastal area. On the inland plateau there were mining communities around the steel town of Consett in the north-west and Durham City in the centre. But the pits in these areas closed in the 1960s and 1970s so that miners travelled from here to the surviving pits on the coast, some of which actually tunnelled under the sea, at Seaham, Easington and Horden.

In Nottinghamshire, where most of the miners did not come out on strike, a distinction has to be drawn between the more militant pits in the north of the county, bordering Yorkshire, such as Manton and Warsop Main, and pits further south, such as Annesley, where there was much less support for the strike. One theory to be tested is that the miners who continued working had arrived more recently in the coalfield or did not come from mining families and thus had less conception of solidarity. Even further south, in Leicestershire, only thirty miners went on strike but became some of the most active missionaries of the strike nation-wide, nicknamed The Dirty Thirty.

In Scotland, the focus will be on the town of Cowdenbeath in Central Fife, known as 'the Chicago of Fife', in turn at the heart of a series of mining villages such as Limphinnans, Kitty, Lochgelly and Lochore, which had the reputation of being 'little Moscows' because of the strength of the Communist party there in the 1920s and 1930s. The pits in the area closed in the 1960s, leaving Cowdenbeath with only an NUM workshop, so that as in County Durham miners from Central Fife travelled to the coastal collieries of Seafield and Frances to work, but the headquarters of the strike and support group remained at Cowdenbeath.

The study draws on about 125 life-history interviews undertaken in 2019-21 with former miners, miners' wives, miners' children and members of support groups. Two permissions have been secured from the interviewees, one that I may use the interviews for the current project, the to authorise the British Library to archive them in its oral history collection. From these interviews I shall be selecting about fifty for extensive use in the book.

The life-history interview makes it possible to explore both the political and the personal, the public and the private, in the testimony of the interviewees. It is important to know about the family background, education, employment history and personal lives of the activists in order to provide a context for their activism. The life-history format provides a narrative arc beginning with lives before the strike, moving to lives during the strike to and concluding with lives after the strike. We discover how individuals became involved in the strike, what strike and support action they were engaged in and what happened to them afterwards. Each testimony is different but patterns emerge in their biographies. For the period after the strike two dominant narratives are in tension. One is that the loss of the strike and subsequent loss of mining jobs put families under huge stress, hollowed out communities and replaced the organised working class by an unorganised precariat. Another is that after the strike former miners, miners' wives and children reinvented themselves, furthering their education, finding other occupations, becoming involved in other political and social causes, curating the heritage of the mining industry. This book traces these competing narratives at the level of individuals but also seeks to ascertain which narratives dominate at the regional level: stories of triumph, stories of regeneration, stories of fragmentation and failure.

The interviews will be archived in due course by the British Library.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Miners' Strike of 1984-5: an oral history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The approach of this book is threefold. First of all, it looks at the strike through three lenses, class, community and family. Secondly, it is a local and regional approach, a close study of certain mining communities in the context of their region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voters in three constituencies in England are taking part in by-elections to choose new MPs.

The results are likely to be studied for clues about what could happen during the next general election.

When is the next general election due?

UK general elections - where all 650 MPs are elected to the House of Commons - have to be held no more than five years apart.

The next election is therefore due by January 2025.

This represents five years from the day the current Parliament first met (17 December 2019), plus the time required to run an election campaign.

Who can call an early election?

The decision to hold an early election usually rests with the prime minister.

However, until very recently, this wasn't the case.

In 2011, a law was passed which removed the PM's power to decide the date of an election and instead handed control to the House of Commons. Under those rules an early election could only be held under certain circumstances - such as if two-thirds of MPs agreed.

However, after winning the 2019 election, the Conservatives introduced a new law called the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.

This restored the PM's power to call elections at a time of their choosing.

How is an early election called?

If a PM wants an early election they need to make a "request" to the King to dissolve Parliament - the official term for closing Parliament in order to hold an election.

Once an election is called, polling day would be expected to take place 25 working days later.

At the point of dissolution, MPs lose their status, and campaign for re-election (assuming they choose to stand again).

How did Sunak become prime minister with no general election?

Former Chancellor Rishi Sunak became prime minister in October 2022, after replacing Liz Truss as leader of the Conservative Party.

Constitutionally, he was not required to call an election to consolidate his position.

Twice in the 20th Century, the prime minister was replaced without a general election being called.

Stanley Baldwin won the 1935 election but was replaced by Neville Chamberlain in 1937. He resigned in 1940 to be replaced by Winston Churchill. And because World War Two was still being fought, there was no general election until 1945.

There were also two changes of prime minister between the 1900 and 1906 general elections, although Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman called a general election as soon as he became prime minister.

More recently, there have been been several occasions when new prime ministers did not call early general elections to seek a fresh mandate.

When Gordon Brown took over from Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007, for example, he did not hold an early election.

Theresa May became prime minister in 2016 but did not go to the polls until 2017. Her successor, Boris Johnson, became PM in July 2019, but didn't call an election until December.

Can an early election be forced?

A prime minister must have the "confidence" of the House of Commons, which means they must be supported by a majority of MPs.

A motion of no confidence would see MPs from all parties decide whether they want the government to continue.

If the leader of the opposition introduces such a motion, convention means that the government should provide time for a debate and a vote.

In order to pass, the motion needs just one more MP voting in favour than against.

If the government loses the vote, a general election is normally called.

It is also possible that the King could invite somebody else to form a government, if they could win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.

However, for a no confidence motion to pass, the incumbent party's MPs would need to vote down their own government - which is very unlikely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
General election: When is the next one and could it be called sooner?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UK general elections can be no more than five years apart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4.Conventions and The Royal Prerogative

Sources of Constitutional Authority: Conventions

strictest sense 'laws', since they are rules which (whether written or unwritten, whether

are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of

constitution', or constitutional morality. To put the same thing in a somewhat different

authoritative writers, consists of two elements. The one element, here called the 'law of

 Meeting of Parliament Act 1694

 Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949

 The Human Rights Act 1998

 The Government of Wales Acts 1998 & 2006

 The Freedom of Information Act 2000

Copyright © 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lecture notes - Conventions and The Royal Prerogative - 4. Conventions and The Royal Prerogative - Studocu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
lecture notes conventions and the royal prerogative sources of constitutional authority: conventions dicey on sources of constitutional law: rules which make

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election: Labour wins Westminster seat replacing Margaret Ferrier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oil, smoking and football: The 21 laws unveiled in King's Speech | ITV News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Initially moderate, the British premier is trying to sway voters by taking a conservative stance on migration, environment and gender issues

An activist wearing a British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak mask protests against rising interest rates outside the Bank of England in London on Thursday. TOLGA AKMEN (EFE)

During his brief 10 months in office, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has implemented a distinctly right-wing agenda. The Conservative Party leader has championed controversial measures like stricter immigration policies, expanding gas and oil concessions in the North Sea, and vetoing Scotland's gender self-determination law. Sunak's recent decisions go against his previously moderate image and are viewed by analysts as an effort to boost poll numbers, given the Labor Party's current lead. But Sunak's shift to the right is also driven by long-held ideological positions.

Sunak, a protégé of David Cameron, the prime minister who sponsored the Brexit referendum, risked his political career in 2016 when he supported the U.K.'s exit from the European Union. However his pursuit of fiscal prudence in last year's Conservative Party primaries faltered against Liz Truss, who appeased the party's ranks by making the promises they wanted to hear.

Sunak, who was the finance minister until July 2022, was labeled a loser and a centrist, two highly undesirable traits for the current Tory base. Meanwhile, even though Truss only supported Brexit after the 2016 referendum, she was able to garner support from the right-wing faction of the party over Sunak. Truss won the primaries, but her term as prime minister was short-lived, lasting only 45 days.

Truss's precipitous fall caused by her disastrous tax cut solidified Sunak as her ideal replacement, a proven leader known for his calm competence. Sunak's support for fiscal responsibility and measured approach further strengthened his moderate credentials. However, after being in office for 10 months, this perception is now starting to fade away. The Economist recently described him as "the most right-wing Conservative leader of his generation," in an article that summed up the dissonance between perception and reality with the ironic headline: " No, really. Rishi Sunak is a right-winger."

Pablo de Orellana, an expert on far-right political movements with a doctorate in international relations from King's College London, said: "Under Boris Johnson's leadership, the party leaned more toward the right, particularly in terms of populist ideas such as birthright and nationalism, rather than economic aspects. Rishi Sunak, on the other hand, is attempting a blend of both approaches. While he subscribes to the belief in absolute deregulation and the banking sector's capacity to drive economic growth, he also recognizes the need to adopt right-wing populist policies for gaining legitimacy."

Sunak's understated style, meticulousness, and relative youth (43) have somewhat obscured his convictions, making him appear more centrist in nature. "He's made a deal with the devil. Since taking office, Sunak has aligned himself with the far-right wing of the Conservatives. He believes that populist ideas rooted in the new right will secure votes," said de Orellana.

Since winning a Parliament seat in 2015, Sunak has been open about his political ideas. As a former Goldman Sachs banker and member of the liberal wing of the party, he expressed admiration for Nigel Lawson, whose fiscal doctrine underpinned Thatcherism. Sunak is now seen as Lawson's natural successor, but some conservatives criticize Sunak for his hesitancy to support lower taxes due to the uncertainty caused by Brexit and significant public spending during the pandemic.

In 2022, during his battle with Truss to replace Boris Johnson, lingering doubts about his conservative credentials led him to publicly deny being a closet socialist. His denial added to the perception of him as a centrist, but his real stance has become cloudier since taking office. In early August, before going to California on his first vacation in four years, Sunak voiced his disagreement with measures by local authorities to curb pollution, like establishing restrictions on traffic in neighborhoods. "I am on the side of the drivers," he declared.

Cameron was the first Tory leader to strongly support environmental issues. Theresa May followed by signing a zero-emissions commitment by 2050 into law. In July, Sunak announced controversial offshore oil and gas concessions in the North Sea and blocked a Scottish gender self-determination measure.

Pablo de Orellana attributes this drift to both ideology and strategy. "To better understand his ideological conviction, one can look at his support for Brexit. He advocated for financial deregulation to position the U.K. as a European Singapore. However, he now believes that right-wing backing is crucial to implementing his vision." But de Orellana also sees an element of survival in Sunak. "He feels extremely insecure. Since he didn't win the general election and isn't the face of the party, he must seek to gain legitimacy from the previous election victory [won by Johnson in 2019]."

Sunak's conservative agenda and the European Court of Human Rights have clashed over his policy of sending irregular migrants to Rwanda, which was upheld by the British Supreme Court. There has also been criticism of a proposal to establish a floating prison in the south of England for housing asylum seekers. "These conflicts are symbolic of the new right," said de Orellana.

Sunak's right-wing drift presents a dilemma. When he became the third prime minister within six weeks last October, his reputation for restraint and economic acumen worked in his favor. Following the chaos of Johnson and the disappointment of Truss, Sunak's low-key profile elevated him in the polls and made him more popular than his own party.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
After 13 years in power, the Conservative Party is showing some public opinion wear and tear, whereas the youngish Sunak projected discipline and competence. "But he has surrounded himself with people who are not at all moderate by Conservative standards," said de Orellana. Labor landed a resounding blow on the Conservatives during the municipal elections in May, so the upcoming general elections in January 2025 already have Sunak on high alert.

More information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rishi Sunak, the practical politician who shifted right as prime minister

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Initially moderate, the British premier is trying to sway voters by taking a conservative stance on migration, environment and gender issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rishi Sunak refuses to apologise for Britain's slavery record

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: What is the new Northern Ireland deal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the shadow cabinet?

The shadow cabinet is made up of senior members of the main opposition party in Westminster who act as spokespeople for the opposition in specific policy areas. Shadow ministers are appointed by the leader of the opposition and generally take roles that mirror the current government. Their job is to scrutinise those they 'shadow' in government, and develop policies for their party.

The official opposition, and the shadow cabinet in particular, is expected to play the role of a 'government in waiting'. In the event of a change of governing party, members of the shadow cabinet might expect to take up the role they have been shadowing. This does not always happen, however, and a new prime minister may decide to allocate roles to their team differently once they are in government . In 2010, for instance, David Cameron appointed shadow home secretary Chris Grayling as a minister of state in the Department for Work and Pensions, while Kenneth Clarke was moved from the shadow business portfolio to become secretary of state for justice. This particular move from shadow cabinet to cabinet was more complicated than usual due to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Not all shadow cabinet roles have a direct opposite number in government. Sometimes the opposition will appoint a shadow minister for a policy area it thinks is important and that it wishes to highlight. Before the 2023 shadow cabinet reshuffle, Rosena Allin-Khan attended shadow cabinet as shadow minister for mental health, despite the fact that her opposite number in government was a parliamentary under-secretary - the most junior rank of minister.

The most recent shadow cabinet was announced on 4 September 2023. Labour leader Keir Starmer made significant changes to his frontbench , with five shadow minsters dismissed from the shadow cabinet, four newly appointed from outside shadow cabinet, and nine existing shadow cabinet ministers moving portfolios.

How experienced are the shadow cabinet?

Current shadow cabinet ministers have spent longer, on average, in their current roles than their cabinet equivalent, with the median shadow cabinet minister having served two years versus one year, two months for the median cabinet minister.

However, this average obscures significant variance between shadow cabinet ministers, some of whom - like Rachel Reeves - have spent more than three and a half years in post and others - like shadow justice secretary Shabana Mahmood - who were only appointed to their positions in September 2023.

The average shadow cabinet minister has also served more time in parliament than their cabinet equivalent: the median cabinet minister has spent eight and a half years in parliament, compared to more than 13.5 years for the median shadow cabinet minister.

Three shadow cabinet ministers (Yvette Cooper, John Healey and Alan Campbell) have held their seats since the 1997 general election - a longer continuous spell than any member of the cabinet. By contrast, both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer were first elected at the 2015 general election, as were both of their deputies.

What constituencies do members of the shadow cabinet represent?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shadow cabinet | Institute for Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The shadow cabinet is made up of senior members of the main opposition party in Westminster who act as spokespeople for the opposition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does the House of Lords Really Do? - TLDR Explains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your ultimate guide to the UK general election 2024