The Big Question: Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution (...)?

(...)
Why don't we have a written constitution?

Essentially because the country has been too stable for too long. The governing elites of many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions in response to popular revolt or war.
Great Britain, by contrast, remained free of the revolutionary fervour that swept much of the Continent in the 19th century. As a result, this country's democracy has been reformed incrementally over centuries rather than in one big bang. For younger countries, including the United States and Australia, codification of their citizens' rights and political systems was an essential step towards independence. Ironically, several based their written constitutions on Britain's unwritten version.

What do our rights depend upon?

Britain's constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European legislation. It is not set out clearly in any one document. Mr Straw said yesterday: "The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law."
Nor is there a single statement of citizens' rights and freedom. As the Justice Secretary put it: "Most people might struggle to put their finger on where their rights are."

What about the Magna Carta?

When the barons forced King John in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta, it was an event that would reverberate through constitutional law eight centuries later.
The landowners were driven by a desire to protect their own interests rather than those of the people. But the resulting document, which has no legal force today in this country, was a key inspiration for the architects of the US constitution.
It has had huge symbolic value in the development of Western-style democracy in that it limited state powers and protected some citizens' rights. Its key principles, including the right to a fair trial by one's peers and protection from unlawful imprisonment, have underpinned common law.

What other constitutional landmarks have there been?

The Bill of Rights of 1689, which followed the accession of William and Mary to the throne after the "glorious revolution" bolstered the powers of parliament and, by extension, the rights of the sovereign's subjects. They included freedom from taxes imposed by the monarch and from being called up in peace-time to serve in the army without Parliament's permission.
The Great Reform Act of 1832, which vastly increased the number of adult males entitled to vote in elections, is widely seen as the starting-point for establishing the sovereignty of citizens over parliament. It set in train the process that led to the Representation of the People's Act of 1928, which gave all men and women over the age of 21 the right to vote.
Then there was Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, which brought the country for the first time under a degree of international judicial control.
Ten years ago Britain came closer than before to codifying individuals' rights when the Human Rights Act enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
What are the advantages of awritten constitution?
It has become almost a truism that British politics, beset by cynicism about politicians and undermined by falling turn-outs at general elections, is in crisis.
Supporters argue that producing such a document could tackle such disillusionment, at the same time as setting new, clear limits on the power of the executive. The Liberal Democrats have called for the public to be involved in drawing up the constitution. They say: "This would reform and reinvigorate the democratic process, putting individuals back in control instead of the wealthy, large businesses and the unions."

(...)

Extract from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-why-doesnt-the-uk-have-a-written-constitution-and-does-it-matter-781975.html#

The British Parliamentary System

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ptop/A591383
August 2001

The British Parliament has been in existence since 1215, when King John signed the Magna Carta, and is one of the oldest in the world. The workings of it have changed through the ages and below is a brief description of the ways in which it works.
Parliament consists of two chambers, the House of Commons, consisting of members of parliament who are elected, and the House of Lords, consisting of unelected peers. The Sovereign, at the moment Queen Elizabeth II, is the third part of the Parliament. The government is officially known as Her Majesty's Government. The Queen has, in principle, a lot of power over the government, but chooses not to exercise that power. This position has emerged through the ages, though at one time the Sovereign exercised a lot of power over the government, and the country.

The Make Up of the House of Commons
Members of Parliament

The House of Commons consists of Members of Parliament, who are elected. The United Kingdom¹is split into constituencies, and each constituency votes for an MP (Member of Parliament) to represent them, using the 'first past the post' system.
Each MP is a member of one of the political parties, or an independent candidate, and this is stated on the ballot paper. There is no requirement to be a member of one of the parties, but most MPs are party members.

Elections

At least every five years there is a general election, when the MPs are elected. The Prime Minister decides on the timing of the election, and can call an election at any time, but one must be called within five years of the one before. It is usual for an election to be called after four years. A motion of no confidence can be brought against a government, which, if successful, will result in an early general election. They are rare however, and are likely to bolster support for the government if it fights off such a challenge.
There is potential for a by-election where one constituency has to elect a new MP. This happens if the MP cannot serve as MP, such as if they die, resign², or become a member of the House of Lords³. This allows a new MP to be elected.

The Governemnt

At least every five years there is a general election, when the MPs are elected. The Prime Minister decides on the timing of the election, and can call an election at any time, but one must be called within five years of the one before. It is usual for an election to be called after four years. A motion of no confidence can be brought against a government, which, if successful, will result in an early general election. They are rare however, and are likely to bolster support for the government if it fights off such a challenge.
There is potential for a by-election where one constituency has to elect a new MP. This happens if the MP cannot serve as MP, such as if they die, resign², or become a member of the House of Lords³. This allows a new MP to be elected.

The opposition

The official opposition has few privileges attached to it, but usually the opposition has a greater voice in speaking out against the government, and the media will pay more attention to the opposition than more minor parties. There is very little that the opposition can do that other parties cannot, but the opposition having more MPs has more power to oppose laws, especially if the government is divided over an issue. It can also use this power to help it dictate the business of the House.

The Cabinet

The Cabinet are the main people who run the country, with the Prime Minister in charge, and other ministers having their own department or ministry. They are each responsible for some area of public policy such as education, health and transport. A minister has some freedom in the decisions (s)he can make, but in some cases legislation is needed, which requires the support of both houses of Parliament (see 'The Passing of Laws' below)
Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister, and are usually chosen from the government party. Most cabinet posts need to be held by MPs. Some minor posts can be held by members of the House of Lords, but only MPs can debate issues in the House of Commons, so it would be unlikely for someone not an MP to have a high profile role in the government, as they would not be able to defend their position in the House of Commons.

The Parties

Most parties give their leader, and other important party members, a safe seat⁴ to represent. It would be a political embarrassment if the party leader, or high-profile members of a party ,were to be elected out of office. In the case of a cabinet minister, they could not serve as minister until, and unless, they are re-elected. It is possible for a member of a political party to stand for election in any constituency, but they could be expelled from a party for standing against one of their fellow party members, and this is not usually in the interests of either, as they could split the vote, and allow another party in.

The Make Up of the House of Lords

The House of Lords consists of both hereditary peers, who have inherited their peerage and their title, and life peers, who are appointed by the government, and stay in their positions for life. A large majority of the peers are life peers. Also, important members of the clergy form part of the House of Lords, as do senior judges, or law lords, and other office holders, who have specific roles in the House. Only the office holders, such as the Leader of the House, are paid, the rest can only claim expenses.
Members of the House of Lords cannot become MPs, or hold certain other elected posts. However, lords are allowed to disclaim their title and when standing to become MP, for example, and reclaim the title later. The rule is, however, that no-one can be a member of both houses at the same time.
Peers may have some loyalty to some political party, but there is less of a compulsion to follow the wishes of any party, than for MPs. They cannot be expelled from the House of Lords by being voted out, so have less need for the support of a party, although peers may feel some loyalty to one party.
At the time of writing, the government is reforming the House of Lords, and has appointed so called people's peers, who are not chosen for their affiliation to any political party, but are, in theory, appointed on merit, by an independent committee. This has not met with much success, as the people chosen were not ordinary members of the public. It may be that the House of Lords becomes fully elected, but it is unlikely to be the priority for any government, and slow progress is likely on this issue.

The Passing of Laws in the House of Commons

Almost all laws that are made are proposed by the Cabinet. The Cabinet, through a relevant minister, proposes laws to the House of Commons, and then there is a debate on the issues. The bills⁵, go through a number of stages in the House of Commons. First, the bill is announced in brief. This is called the first reading. Within a fortnight, the principles and some of the detail of the bill are announced, and they are debated. This is the second reading. Here, there is a vote, and if the bill is not supported, then it cannot proceed further. Assuming a vote is successful, then it is passed on to the committee stage.
At the committee stage, the bill is discussed in minute detail. A committee is a number of MPs meeting to discuss the bill. Sometimes a standing committee is set up to discuss the bill. Sometimes, a select committee, dealing with a certain area of government may discuss the bill. On very important matters, the committee may consist of the whole House of Commons or both houses of parliament.
After this stage, the committee report back to the House of Commons. Amendments to the bill can be proposed at this stage. The individual details of the bill cannot be discussed, however. This precedes the third reading, where the bill with any amendments is announced to the House of Commons. If the House approves, then the bill is passed to the House of Lords.

In the House of Lords

The House of Lords will then debate the issues, following similar stages to those the bill must pass through in the House of Commons, although it is not usual for committees to be discuss bills, rather it is more likely for the whole house to act as a committee. After this stage, both houses must agree on the final form of the bill, so if the bill has been amended, the assent of the House of Commons is needed for the amended bill.
If both houses accept the bill then it, possibly having been amended, will go to the Queen to sign it. The Sovereign is unlikely to decline this, and the last time the Royal Assent, as this is known, was refused was in 1707. At one time, the Sovereign would have used his/her power a lot more, but more recently the Sovereign has deferred to parliament.
Mostly government bills are passed as stated, with few changes as the government will almost always have a majority, so can usually force through bills, if the government's MPs vote with the government. The greater the majority, the easier this is. Most parties have individuals in them called Whips who have a role of keeping their party's members informed of parliamentary business, and also try to make sure that the MPs vote in favour of their party. In a coalition government the situation is different, as the two parties may disagree on many issues.

Raising bills in the House of Lords

Some bills are debated solely in the House of Lords. These tends to be noncontroversial bills, where the main problems are to do with the detail, rather than the principle. These bills must still be presented to the House of Commons, who must vote in favour of it, for it to become law. Also bills relating to the introduction of new charges, such as taxes, must be raised by a government minister in the House of Commons.

Overruling the House of Lords

The House of Lords usually follows the Salisbury Convention in that parts of a government's manifesto are not challenged in the House of Lords. Also, the system allows for the House of Lords to be overruled. Bills dealing only with tax or government spending must be made law within one month, for example. Also after one year, and in a new session of parliament, a bill rejected by the House of Lords can be sent for Royal Assent, bypassing the House of Lords. There are some types of bills that must have the support of the House of Lords to become law.

Private Members Bills

Any MP can propose a bill, called a private members bill. These are unlikely to be made law, but can be. They tend to be proposed where the government does not want to raise it, and they generally do not have government backing, so are rarely made law, and may not even be fully debated. The process is sometimes used to highlight the need for government action rather than to make law.
The Early Day Motion system can be a way of highlighting the need for action. They take the form of a request 'That... ' followed by the subject of the motion. While they may not be debated, they are distributed to MPs so can become widely known in the House of Commons. Some Early Day Motions are comments on certain groups, actions, or events, while some seek to encourage certain actions by the House of Commons.
The motions can be endorsed by other MPs, by signing them, and amendments can be made, by the MPs, and the amended motion may be signed. This system can give an indicator of the views of the MPs, and is also used to raise issues when there is little or no time to debate them. They, in themselves, may not become law, although they can, but can be a way of drawing attention to the need for law to be made, or action taken in the case in question.
There is limited time for debate of bills in the House of Commons, so private members bills are presented to the MPs, and some of these are voted for. The successful bills are then given time for debate, and have a chance of becoming law, given support of the MPs. Also, the ten-minute rule allows for a short speech in favour of a bill, and a short speech against it. This can be an attempt at law, but may be an attempt to highlight an area of concern. The time for this bill is when the House will usually be full, and the press are likely to be present, and the MP in question is likely to be able to get a lot of publicity, even if the bill does not make law.

Devolution

In the last few years, the government has devolved some power over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to parliaments in these countries, called respectively the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This allows them some power over issues only affecting their country.
At the moment, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, allow these countries to have more control over certain issues in their countries. Wales and Scotland, and Northern Ireland still have MPs in the British parliament. This is a source of controversy, as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote in issues that only affect England, but not the other way round.

Conclusion

The British Parliament is currently changing in a number of ways. However, this entry is meant to give a guide to the system at the current moment. For other information about the Parliament, and the devolved governments, the following Links might be useful. They are links to the official websites of the parliaments.

British Parliament

Scottish Parliament

Welsh Assembly

Northern Ireland Assembly

Tony Blair in the House of Commons / March 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8189000/8189443.stm

UK Balance of Trade

Since 1998, U.K. runs consistent trade deficit mainly due to increase in demand of consumer goods, decline in manufacturing and deterioration in oil and gas production. In recent years, U.K. has run the biggest trade deficits with Norway, Germany, China, Hong Kong and Netherlands. September 17, 2014. 
Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

 

Britain and the EU: A long and rocky relationship

BBC News, By Sam Wilson
The United Kingdom's relationship with the EU - or, in political parlance, "Europe" - has long been one of the most divisive, emotive issues in British politics.

Now it is centre stage again, and the debates between Eurosceptic Nigel Farage and Europhile Nick Clegg bring the argument down to a stark, binary choice not seriously faced in decades - In, or Out.

But why does Europe produce such a polarised reaction? Many Britons, on both sides of the debate, love visiting European countries and idolise elements of their culture - not least the food. Indeed, more than 1.5 million Britons have moved there to live.

But Europeans viewing British newspaper coverage, political debates or opinion polls would be forgiven for thinking we have little but contempt for our neighbours. It is, to say the least, a complex relationship.

The weight of history

Maybe it is the long history of hostilities that clouds the British view of Europe with suspicion. As an empire builder and major trading power it was inevitable that Britain would come into conflict with rivals vying for the same territories and trade routes. And allegiances shifted. All of its main rivals - Germany in the world wars, Russia in the Cold War, and France through most of modern history - have also at times been important allies.

But for many historians the most enduring influence on Britain's self-image is World War Two. And it may be that the popular perception of Britain in its Darkest Hour, standing alone as the British Empire against Nazi Germany in 1940-41, informs a modern view of the UK as its own best friend. And that if anyone can be relied on to come to her aid, it is the United States.

BBC History: British history

An insular mentality?

Britain, obviously, is an island nation. Is this the key to its arms-length attitude to Europe? For centuries "we lived in splendid isolation, protected by the Navy and the Empire", the historian Vernon Bogdanor has said. "Now, of course, that period of isolation has long gone, but perhaps it still retains some of its impact upon the British people, who do not want ties with the Continent."

But other members of the EU - Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus - are islands, and they do not object so much to handing powers to Brussels. Perhaps it is Britain's island mentality, combined with that imperial hangover, that is at play - Britain is used to giving orders, not taking them.

Prof Vernon Bogdanor: Britain and the Continent

An end to war

The formation of the European Union had its origins after 1945, in the desire to tie Europe's nations so closely together that they could never again wreak such damage on each other. Winston Churchill fully supported this idea, proposing for Europe "a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom... a kind of United States of Europe".

But as the European Coal and Steel Community was forged in 1951, Britain stood on the sidelines; and it declined an invitation to join the six founding nations of the European Economic Community in signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

One of the architects of the ECSC, Frenchman Jean Monnet, said: "I never understood why the British did not join. I came to the conclusion that it must have been because it was the price of victory - the illusion that you could maintain what you had, without change."

Winston Churchill's 1946 Zurich speech (full text)

The Schuman declaration (EU site)

Step by step - how the EU grew

Britain wants in

With its own economy stuck in a rut, Britain saw France and Germany posting a strong post-war recovery and forming a powerful alliance, and changed its mind. It applied to join the EEC in 1961, only for entry to be vetoed - twice - by French President Charles de Gaulle. He accused Britain of a "deep-seated hostility" towards European construction, and of being more interested in links with the US.

Britain may have had selfish reasons for wanting to sign up, but then seeking mutual benefits is part of the motivation for the European project. As the historian James Ellison points out, Europe has not just been a place of conflict for Britain over the centuries. "It was also a place of diplomatic agreement, trade, co-operation and - through most of the second half of the 20th Century and the 21st - peace and stability and growth," he says.

James Ellison: Is Britain more European than it thinks?

Britain gets in

Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath finally led Britain into the EEC in 1973, after Gen de Gaulle had left office. When membership was put to a referendum in 1975, it had the support of Britain's three main parties and all its national newspapers. The result was resounding - with more than 67% voting in favour. But that did not end the debate. There was no immediate economic fillip - in fact strikes and power cuts continued, and rising oil prices caused double-digit inflation.

British prime ministers' key speeches on Europe

Role reversal

Margaret Thatcher campaigned for EEC membership in 1975

In the 1970s, the Conservatives backed British membership - though there was some opposition on the right of the party. The most concerted opposition came from the left of the Labour party, led by Tony Benn and Michael Foot. Mr Foot's 1983 Labour manifesto promised withdrawal from the EEC - by then more commonly called the European Community (EC) - after the pro-Europe wing of the party had split off to form the SDP.

"Europe has been a toxic issue in British politics," Prof Bogdanor says, not just because it caused division between parties, "but also deep divisions within the parties".

"Some might argue that the fundamental conflict in post-war British politics is not so much between left and right as between those who believe that Britain's future lies with Europe and those who believe it does not."

The 1970s - really that bad?

Rising antipathy

In 1984, Margaret Thatcher corrected what was seen as an injustice, negotiating a permanent rebate for Britain on its EC contributions, because it received much less in agricultural subsidies than some other countries, notably France.

The 1980s saw a growing divide between Britain and Brussels, where the socialist Jacques Delors had taken the helm at the European Commission and was steering towards a more federal Europe and a single currency.

Mrs Thatcher was uncompromising. Her 1988 speech in Bruges, in which she rejected "a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels", has become a seminal text for Eurosceptics. But, with many Europhiles in her cabinet (far more than nowadays), her stance fuelled the Conservatives' internal warfare, and helped lead eventually to her downfall.

Margaret Thatcher's 1988 Bruges speech (full text) and video here

Humiliation

"Black Wednesday" was one of the lowest points in Britain's relationship with Europe. After failing to fend off intense currency speculation, Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont was forced to announce Britain's withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16 September, 1992.

1992 and all that

Mrs Thatcher had been unable to stop Europe's march towards political union, and was gone by the time the Maastricht Treaty was signed by her successor John Major in 1992. This involved huge transfers of power to the new European Union. Britain secured opt-outs from the single currency and the social chapter. But to the treaty's critics - including many Tory rebels - it undermined the British tradition of the inviolable sovereignty of parliament.

Treaty of Maastricht

Building bridges...

A pro-European Tony Blair was well received in Europe - until the Iraq war

Tony Blair followed a landslide election victory in 1997 by quickly patching things up with Europe. He signed Britain up to the social chapter, delivering some of the social protections long coveted on the left, and setting his sights on the euro. But Britain's economy was doing well, support for euro entry was not widespread, and Chancellor Gordon Brown put the plans on hold.

Brown: I would have quit over euro

…and burning them?

David Cameron became the first British PM to block a new European treaty

The euro crisis has put paid to any prospect of Britain adopting the single currency, and has perhaps fuelled the Euroscepticism that now apparently runs strongly through parts of the Conservative Party and the public at large.

In December 2011, as EU leaders tried to tackle their problems through a treaty setting new budget rules, David Cameron demanded exemptions and then vetoed the pact. To critics, this cut Britain adrift. But it delighted Eurosceptics and encouraged them to demand more. Soon enough, the prime minister promised a referendum on British membership. Britain's most poisonous political issue was back centre stage.

1 April 2014 Last updated at 00:14 GMThttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26515129

The Troubles 1968 - 1998

The conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century is known as the Troubles. Over 3,600 people were killed and thousands more injured.

Over the course of three decades, violence on the streets of Northern Ireland was commonplace and spilled over into mainland Britain, the Republic of Ireland and as far afield as Gibraltar.

Several attempts to find a political solution failed until the Good Friday Agreement, which restored self-government to Northern Ireland and brought an end to the Troubles.

The Troubles refers to a violent thirty-year conflict that began with a civil rights march in Londonderry on 5 October 1968 and concluded with the Good Friday Agreement on 10 April 1998. 

At the heart of the conflict lay the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
The goal of the unionist and overwhelmingly Protestant majority was to remain part of the United Kingdom. The goal of the nationalist and republican, almost exclusively Catholic, minority was to become part of the Republic of Ireland.

This was a territorial conflict, not a religious one. At its heart lay two mutually exclusive visions of national identity and national belonging. The principal difference between 1968 and 1998 is that the people and organisations pursuing these rival futures eventually resolved to do so through peaceful and democratic means. This ascendancy of politics over violence was not easily achieved.

During the Troubles, the scale of the killings perpetrated by all sides - republican and loyalist paramilitaries and the security forces - eventually exceeded 3,600. As many as 50,000 people were physically maimed or injured, with countless others psychologically damaged by the conflict, a legacy that continues to shape the post-1998 period.

Direct rule returns

In 1968, the Northern Ireland parliament had been dominated by unionists for over fifty years. Its attempts to solve social and political ills, such as institutional discrimination against Catholics, were too slow for nationalists and republicans and too quick for many unionists. This gave rise to growing tension and violence between the two communities.
The mounting scale of the disorder led successive UK governments to intervene. In 1969, the situation was so grave that British troops were sent to help restore order. By 1972, things had deteriorated so badly that the British government suspended the Northern Ireland parliament and imposed direct rule from London.
Relegated to the margins of UK politics for half a century, Northern Ireland had suddenly reclaimed centre stage.

The 'long war'

At this time, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) - the main republican paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland - was uninterested in any solution short of British withdrawal and Irish unification. The 'Provisionals' had split from the 'Official IRA' in 1969 and are subsequently referred to here as the IRA.
For them, the 'long war' was the only option. This strategy had been gaining traction since the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) in 1971 and the killing of 13 people by the Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday the following year.
When secret talks with the UK government in 1972 collapsed, the IRA leadership resolved to erode the British presence in Northern Ireland through a war of attrition.
For their part, the major loyalist paramilitary organisations of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had resolved to use violence to resist republican paramilitaries and to oppose Irish unification.
It was against this backdrop of soaring violence and increasingly entrenched positions that moves to find a lasting solution began.

Sunningdale's frosty reception

Direct rule by British ministers was viewed as a short-term measure and a process designed to restore self-government to Northern Ireland was soon underway. The first attempt was the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, which provided for both a devolved, power-sharing administration and a role for the Irish government in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland - the so-called 'Irish dimension'.
Together with the UK and Irish governments, just three Northern Ireland political parties participated in the Sunningdale talks - the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and the centre-ground Alliance Party. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was wholly opposed to Sunningdale and did not participate. Representatives of the 'extremes' - loyalist and republican paramilitaries - were not invited.
Sunningdale's political institutions collapsed in early 1974, toppled by the Ulster Workers Council (UWC) strike, a near-insurrection spearheaded by a coalition of unionists and loyalists that effectively brought Northern Ireland to a standstill.
Although Sunningdale was ultimately a failure, it contained the seeds of the much more intricate and successful Good Friday Agreement twenty five years later.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement

As the cycle of violence escalated post-Sunningdale, further efforts were made by successive UK governments to devise a political settlement, but only one acceptable to those parties it considered "legitimate" and non-violent.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) in 1985 was a serious attempt to achieve a political accord that resolved the "Irish question". It gave the Irish government an advisory role in the affairs of Northern Ireland and determined there would be no change in Northern Ireland's constitutional status - no Irish unification in other words - without the consent of its people. Nonetheless, the treaty broadly alienated the unionist community, which opposed Irish involvement and rejected the proposal for a devolved, power-sharing government. Among the major parties in Northern Ireland, only the SDLP and Alliance Party supported the AIA.
Sinn Féin, the "political wing" of the IRA, was as vociferously opposed to the agreement as unionists. The party had grown in prominence and influence since republican hunger striker Bobby Sands was elected a member of parliament on a wave of popular support shortly before he died in 1981. It had shown Sinn Féin the power of political engagement and led to the adoption of a strategy known as "the armalite and the ballot box" in which the IRA would continue the "armed struggle" while Sinn Féin contested Northern Ireland elections.
Crucially, when the IRA announced a ceasefire in 1994, mainstream republican leaders had recognized that the 'long war' was unwinnable. (Equally, the British Army had come to the view that the conflict could not be won solely by military means.) Sinn Féin's commitment to politics and the electoral process enabled it to enter negotiations designed to end the Troubles and restore self-government to Northern Ireland.

Peace process

Cross-party talks began in earnest in 1996. In almost all quarters, a combination of political realism and war-weariness cleared the path to negotiation. Importantly, President of the United States Bill Clinton took an active personal role, appointing veteran US senator George Mitchell as chair of the talks process that concluded in the Good Friday Agreement.
Negotiating with Sinn Féin was unpalatable for many unionists and loyalists. The UUP, under leader David Trimble, agreed to participate only if those they regarded as terrorists were committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Representatives of loyalist paramilitaries also agreed to take part. By contrast, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) viewed the whole process as unacceptable. They abandoned the talks and opposed the subsequent agreement, but still took their seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly that resulted.
Nevertheless, the Good Friday Agreement marked a seismic shift in Northern Ireland's political landscape. The UUP and SDLP agreed to accept power-sharing, including with former paramilitaries who were committed to the peace process.
All signatories to the agreement endorsed the "consent principle". This meant that any change in Northern Ireland's constitutional status - Irish unification - would happen only popular majorities voted in favour in separate referendums held at the same time on both sides of the border.

After the Good Friday Agreement

If the Good Friday Agreement and the return of self-government to Northern Ireland had been an enormous challenge for all concerned, so was its fitful implementation. Many significant issues remained unresolved in 1998, not least the decommissioning of republican and loyalist weapons.
These and other matters were now susceptible to the force of argument rather than the argument of force. Even so, the first phase of devolved power-sharing was to prove fragile and short-lived, requiring the re-introduction of direct rule from 2002 until 2007.
Only then had sufficient trust been developed between the communities to enable the restoration of devolution.
When government returned to Stormont buildings in Belfast, this time it involved a fully inclusive power-sharing arrangement that embraced both the DUP and Sinn Féin - now the dominant parties within their respective electorates.
This partnership of constitutional opposites is perhaps the most remarkable outcome of the Troubles, and one that underlines the triumph of politics over violence in post-conflict Northern Ireland.

Source: BBC.CO.UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/

 

 

Profile: The Commonwealth

Formerly known as the British Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Nations is a loose association of former British colonies and current dependencies, along with some countries that have no historical ties to Britain. The modern Commonwealth has its roots in the Imperial Conferences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when some of the colonies within the British Empire began to acquire greater autonomy. As some achieved self-government and varying degrees of independence from Britain, a new constitutional definition of their relationship with one another had to be found. OVERVIEW It was only after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 that the Commonwealth acquired its modern shape. It dropped the word British from its name, the allegiance to the crown from its statute, and became an association for decolonised nations. The British monarch, however, remained the official head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has no constitution or charter, but the heads of government of its member states hold Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM) every two years to discuss issues of common interest. In between the summits, the London-based Secretariat - the Commonwealth's executive arm - takes responsibility for carrying out programmes agreed upon during the various meetings. The Secretariat is headed by a secretary-general. FACTS Founded: 1931 Members: 54 states Headquarters (secretariat): Marlborough House, London Population: 1.8 billion (30% of world population) Key bodies: Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth of Learning LEADERS Head: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II As head of the Commonwealth, the Queen is recognised by its members as the "symbol of their free association". She attends the Commonwealth summits and the Commonwealth Games, which are held every four years. Also, on every Commonwealth Day, which is the second Monday in March, she broadcasts a message to all member countries. Secretary-general: Kamalesh Sharma The secretary-general acts as the chief executive of the Commonwealth. He is elected by heads of government from among Commonwealth diplomats and foreign ministers for a maximum of two four-year terms. Mr Sharma has devoted much of his career to development work The present secretary-general, Kamalesh Sharma, was elected in November 2007 and assumed office on 1 April 2008. An Indian diplomat, he had previously served as India's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. Prior to his posting to Britain, Mr Sharma was UN Special Representative to East Timor where he helped to build up the institutions of the newly-independent country. ISSUES The Commonwealth has been criticised for being a post-colonial club. But to its members it is a voluntary association of independent states in the business of promoting democracy, good government, human rights and economic development. It has also been criticised for having little influence. Indeed, the Commonwealth does not act as a bloc in international affairs and has little influence over non-members. However, its influence over its own members derives from the benefits which membership brings in developmental support and cooperation on international goals. Commonwealth Games 2002, held in Manchester, UK Unlike the United Nations, Commonwealth members have no contractual obligations, but members commit themselves to the statements of beliefs set out by heads of government. In 1995 the Commonwealth set up a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), comprising eight ministers, whose function is to deal with governments which persistently violate Commonwealth principles. It can take such punitive collective measures as imposing economic sanctions or suspending recalcitrant members. However, the Commonwealth draws its main strength from its moral authority. Committed to racial equality and national sovereignty, it was the focus of the campaign against apartheid in the 1980s. In 1995 it suspended Nigeria's membership after the military regime there passed the death sentence on the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and other activists, and in 2000 it suspended Fiji after the overthrow of the elected government. Zimbabwe was suspended in March 2002, after elections which observers said were marred by violence and intimidation. In December 2003 the suspension was extended indefinitely. The Zimbabwean government responded by announcing the country was leaving the Commonwealth for good. Pakistan was suspended twice during the military rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Membership of the Commonwealth brings some practical benefits through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC). This is the main way in which the Commonwealth promotes economic and social development and the alleviation of poverty.  Source: BBC.CO.UK - Page last updated at 15:18 GMT, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1554175.stm

Devolution: A beginner's guide

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/first_time_voter/8589835.stm
Thursday, 29 April 2010

Since 1999, the way the United Kingdom is run has been transformed by devolution - a process designed to decentralise government and give more powers to the three nations which, together with England, make up the UK.

The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Devolution essentially means the transfer of powers from the UK parliament in London to assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast, and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. 

When did it begin?

Public votes were held in 1997 in Scotland and Wales, and a year later in both parts of Ireland.
This resulted in the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Devolution applied in different ways in each nation due to historical and administrative differences.

What powers are devolved?
The table below gives an overview of the main powers given to the Northern Irish and Welsh assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament. 

What powers are not devolved?

The UK government is responsible for national policy on all powers which have not been devolved.
These are known usually as "reserved powers" and include foreign affairs, defence, international relations and economic policy.
This table gives an overview of the main non-devolved powers. 

The Westminster Parliament is technically still able to pass laws for any part of the UK, but in practice only deals with devolved matters with the agreement of the devolved governments.

Devolution in Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland Assembly sits at Stormont in Belfast

Devolution here is slightly different to Scotland and Wales, with government powers divided into three categories: transferred, reserved and excepted.
The power-sharing agreement between the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland is critical to the functioning of the assembly; devolution of powers has been suspended and reinstated several times since its inception in 1998.
In addition to the main devolved powers shown in the table, the assembly can also legislate on culture, arts and leisure, learning and employment and regional and social development.
In March 2010, an agreement was passed to transfer powers of justice and policing to Northern Ireland.
Reserved powers - which could be transferred in the future with cross-community consent - include prisons and civil defence.
A third category - excepted powers - includes matters such as parliamentary and assembly elections, international relations and defence.
These cannot be transferred without primary legislation from Westminster.

Devolution in Scotland

The Scottish parliament is based at Holyrood in Edinburgh

Scotland has a "parliament" as opposed to an "assembly" - the crucial difference being that Holyrood is a legislation-making body, passing bills in various areas of its many devolved responsibilities.
The Scottish parliament also has the power to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound - although this so-called "Tartan Tax" has never been used.
In addition to the main devolved powers shown in the table, the parliament can legislate on tourism, economic development, planning, natural and built heritage, sport and the arts, as well as statistics, public registers and records.
The primary powers retained by Westminster include foreign policy, defence and trade and industry.

Devolution in Wales

The Welsh Assembly building is in Cardiff

The Government of Wales Act of 2006 gives the Welsh assembly powers to make its own laws, but limits its scope to defined "fields"; a broad subject area such as education or health.
Within these fields, the assembly is able to enact its own laws, known as measures. The major areas in which the assembly can legislate are listed in the table above.
In addition, the assembly can make laws relating to ancient monuments and historic buildings, public administration, sport and recreation, tourism, town and country planning, flood defences, the assembly itself, and the Welsh language.
By omission, anything not contained in the current list of measures remains under the control of the Parliament in Westminster.
The assembly is split into executive and legislative branches: the Welsh assembly government controls day-to-day running of devolved policy areas within the country, while the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises and debates the assembly government's work.
The assembly could increase its powers in the future and may one day evolve into a body similar to the Scottish Parliament.
In February 2010, assembly members voted in favour of holding a referendum on devolving further powers from Westminster. This motion must now gain approval from both Houses of Parliament.

Why is there not an 'English parliament'?

The UK government is responsible for all matters in England which have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
However devolution has caused some tensions, particularly over public spending.
The new powers of the Scottish Parliament have allowed it to abolish university tuition fees and prescription charges. These services are not free in England.
However Scotland's public services are still paid for by all UK taxpayers under the terms of the Barnett formula, which allocates funding around different parts of the country.
Some in England are increasingly unhappy, seeing this as English taxpayers subsidising free services in Scotland.
A recent survey of 980 people by the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested 40% of those questioned believe this situation unfair, compared with 22% in 2003.

Delivering the report, Professor John Curtice said if the trends continued, politicians "may no longer be able to safely assume that England can be ignored in the devolution debate".