Prosecutors could be forced to stop using evidence from victims and witnesses who do not attend court in another human rights battle between Britain and Europe. The case is the first significant clash between European judges and the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court, over who should dictate domestic law.
Search by:
- APPG (5)
- Constitutional Round-up (7)
- Devolution (13)
- Electoral Reform (27)
- Europe (9)
- Executive (15)
- House of Lords (23)
- Judiciary (7)
- Legislative Standards (3)
- Local Government (3)
- Monarchy (4)
- Parliament (28)
- Parliament and Party Politics (2)
- Scottish Referendum (3)
- Select Committees (10)
- Young People and the Constitution (2)
Fresh battle looms between European human rights court and UK
ARCHIVE: EU debate leads to significant rebellion
[First Published on Tuesday 25th October 2011]
The following post was first published on ConSoc’s previous site. It is recorded here as a window onto issues as they were at the time. For more up to date news on the Constitution and Constitutional reform, make sure to follow the ConSoc blog.
A backbench motion debate on Britain’s relationship with the European Union has led to a significant rebellion of government MPs.
The motion, introduced by David Nuttall MP, moved:
‘…to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom should:
- remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
- leave the European Union; or
- re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.’
ARCHIVE: Debate triggered on the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU
[First Published on Friday 21st October 2011]
The following post was first published on ConSoc’s previous site. It is recorded here as a window onto issues as they were at the time. For more up to date news on the Constitution and Constitutional reform, make sure to follow the ConSoc blog.
With Parliament preparing to follow the call of a public petition to debate the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU, questions about the appropriate role of direct popular influence on the political process have returned to the spotlight.
In the context of a rising sense of public disillusionment with politics following the expenses scandal, the Coalition promised last year to implement a “fundamental shift of power from Westminster to the people”. A number of policies which the government argue follow up on that promise have since been introduced. The Localism Bill (currently being debated in the House of Lords) includes provisions for elected mayors, local referendums and neighborhood planning. The European Union Act commits the government to holding a referendum before any further transfer of power to the EU and the referendum on the Alternative Vote allowed the public to decide the future of the electoral system.
ARCHIVE: EU Foreign Policy: to boldly go where none has gone before?
[First Published on Tuesday 18th May 2001]
The following post was first published on ConSoc’s previous site. It is recorded here as a window onto issues as they were at the time. For more up to date news on the Constitution and Constitutional reform, make sure to follow the ConSoc blog.
An ardent science fiction fan, perhaps Baroness Ashton, the European Union’s new High Representative for Foreign Affairs, would appreciate the words of Mr Spock in Star Trek: “I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.” Perhaps ‘crisis’ is too strong a word for it, but the EU’s foreign policy appears to be in something of a disarray.
For some years criticism has been levelled at the EU for failing to develop a more effective foreign policy; all too frequently the finger was pointed at the inadequate institutions of the EU. The rotating Presidency of the EU tended to lead to a lack of continuity, whilst the fact that the aims of the EU are blurred – is it an economic union? is it a political and social union? – tended to mean that the European Council and the Council of Ministers together lacked sufficient expertise in EU foreign policy. This was only compounded by the division of labour between the Commission, which was the powerhouse on economic matters, and the Council of Ministers, to whom it fell to sort out diplomatic issues. Not only that, but the political rivalry between the Council and the Commission led to competition rather than cooperation in this most sensitive of areas.
