The constitutional implications of the UK internal market proposals (original) (raw)
Related papers
Brexit and Devolution: New Frontiers for the UK Union
2018
s the UK prepares to leave the EU, 2 much has been said about the consequences for open borders and EU freedoms. After nearly five decades of membership, the complexities surrounding divorcing UK laws from those intertwined with the EU are, unsurprisingly, fraught with difficulties. However, beyond Brexit, it is often taken for granted that the UK has enjoyed a ‘customs union’, and border-free movement, that has endured far beyond the longevity of the EU, insofar as the UK is a nation-of-nations. Whilst, post-1998, the UK’s unitary constitutional model of devolution has been fragmented and incremental, the transfer of powers to the regions has been largely based on mutual respect.
What Remains after Brexit? A View from the Outside
Australia and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 2017
The British referendum result to opt for exiting the European Union (EU) has left both the United Kingdom (UK), as well as the rest of the EU with questions regarding the future of the integration and their future economic development. While the EU member-states present a united front in regards to the leave process, there are deeply rooted divisions on all other relevant policy questions. The issues of migration, foreign policy, and the level of cohesion within the EU itself represent the questions where there is little or no consensus. The paper concludes that both the UK and the EU need to address a deep political divide and find a way to coexist in the aftermath of Brexit.
Response to the House of Lords EU Select Committee Brexit: Devolution Inquiry
The political and economic implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland are unique in terms of the nations and regions of the UK due to the land border with Ireland. Leaving the single market, in particular, would have the potential to complicate access to the EU market and restrict cross border trade. Brexit has also impacted upon the Executive’s flagship policy of adjusting corporation tax powers. The Northern Ireland Assembly/Executive have not to date displayed the capacity to cope with these additional responsibilities. In contrast to Wales and Scotland, most dealings with EU matters have to date been concentrated in OFMDFM and the Assembly has rarely considered EU issues. If substantial new responsibilities are devolved to Northern Ireland the Barnett Formula funding model will likely have to be reconsidered. Brexit will see pressure to extend the competences of the Northern Ireland Assembly/Executive by taking on a range of repatriated EU competences, but also makes it harder for Northern Ireland to make effective use of recent transfers of competence, including over corporation tax. The balance of power between the UK Government and Parliament and the devolved bodies has been called into question by Brexit. Brexit included no safeguards to protect the opinion of majorities in Wales and Northern Ireland, and the UK Government has to date proceeded on the basis that the Sewel Convention is not relevant to Brexit. The UK Government’s ability to reflect the interests of Northern Ireland in the forthcoming negotiations is hampered by the state of flux imposed by the collapse of the Assembly as a result of the RHI scandal. Even in the wake of the forthcoming Assembly elections stalemate seems likely and a return to direct rule appears possible. The UK Government must do everything in its power to prevent this outcome and to ensure that Northern Ireland’s Executive is involved in Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations). This is preferable to ad hoc dealings with a range of Northern Ireland parties in which the participants can avoid responsibility for the outcome.
Regional Studies
Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. • Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. • Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. • User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
Devolution and EU Policy Making: The Territorial Challenge
Public Policy and Administration, 2000
This paper seeks to document the impact of structural and organisational change brought about through devolution on the UK's handling of European policy, and thereby to illustrate the nature of the new multi-level governance in the devolving UK. In the context of arrangements prior to devolution, we examine distinctive features of the new constitutional and structural framework of EU policy-making; the guidelines and conventions for the multi-levelled management of policy in this area; and the impact of central versus territorial political and cultural features. Employing an historicalinstitutionalist approach and drawing on a series of elite interviews conducted in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Brussels, we consider the impact of distinctive features of the devolution arrangements on European policy making. These include the ad hoc nature of the devolution process; 'constitutional asymmetry'; and problems of 'policy overlap' and 'policy contagion'. We find that the ongoing process of devolution is increasing the administrative and political complexity of European policy making in ways which potentially challenge the customary UK policy coordination and coherence in such matters. Whereas during the initial 'constitutive' phase of the devolution process continuity of past administrative practice has prevailed, the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales have the potential to introduce a stronger territorial input into European policy making.
On Friday, 19 February, the Heads of State or Government of the EU Member States have decided on a new settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union. The ‘deal’ consists of several documents that were annexed to the conclusions of the European Council of 18 and 19 February (EUCO 1/16). The core document was the decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council . Commissioned by the European Parliament (DG Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs), this report features an in-depth analysis of the outcomes of the renegotiation by the United Kingdom of its Constitutional Relationship with the European Union Economic Governance in the run up to the British referendum on EU membership. The report focuses exclusively on the aspects of the renegotiations that are linked to economic governance of the EU and the Euro area and namely, EMU and Banking Union. Moreover, more generally, the report examines the legal meaning of the draft deal. Whilst the 'deal' was negotiated with a view to the United Kingdom, the provision in the respective documents of the 'deal' address 'non euro area Member States'. By that, the 'deal' on the new settlement would have had consequences beyond the membership of the UK in the EU. Albeit the negative referendum in the United Kingdom has since resulted in a new situation, which is likely going to result in the withdrawal of that country from the EU, valuable lessons for the future of the EU and the Eurozone can be drawn from these past renegotiations.
Brexit Two Years On: Where are We Now? Introduction
The Political Quarterly, 2018
THIS SPECIAL SECTION originates from the need to 'take stock' of Brexit, primarily from a UK perspective, two years after the referendum on EU membership held on 23 June 2016. With this purpose in mind, the guest editors invited a group of leading experts and practitioners to present their respective analyses and reflections in a two-day workshop cosponsored by The Political Quarterly, the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Bologna and the Istituto Carlo Cattaneo Research Foundation, held at the University of Bologna on 21-22 June 2018. The lively discussions that were generated at the workshop testify to the interest of moving the debate beyond simplistic and/or tautological slogans that pertain to daily political polemics (for example, 'Brexit means Brexit'), by acknowledging the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the process and by keeping a close eye on its unfolding. The special section addresses a series of crucial open questions, trying to learn lessons, to identify emerging trends and to envisage likely scenarios/outcomes both in the domestic, bilateral (EU-UK) and multilateral (for example, EU-Ireland-UK) management of Brexit. Needless to say, most of the provided answers are tentative, provisional and sometimes even inconclusive. Clearly, the limited timeframe of only two years does not allow us to clear up the uncertainty and unpredictability that a process as complex as Brexit necessarily entails. In this respect, the deadline for the negotiation of a new EU-UK deal of March 2019 might represent a watershed in our ability to identify the shape and contours of a post-Brexit UK (as well as a post-Brexit EU). And yet, waiting for March 2019 does not guarantee that all the moot points will be fully clarified (for
Interregional inequalities and UK sub-national governance responses to Brexit
Regional Studies, 2019
This paper discusses the various potential impacts of Brexit on UK regions and outlines the sub-national governance challenges these potential impacts raise. In the light of these, the types of activities that UK sub-national governance bodies have initiated in preparation for Brexit are then reviewed. The conclusions suggest that the UK sub-national institutional system is largely unprepared for the post-Brexit realities.