Der Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 in Großbritannien. Oder: Die Folgen eines verfassungspolitischen Blindflugs

Stefan Schieren
{"title":"Der Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 in Großbritannien. Oder: Die Folgen eines verfassungspolitischen Blindflugs","authors":"Stefan Schieren","doi":"10.5771/0340-1758-2023-3-658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When David Cameron wanted to become Prime Minister in 2010 he had to accept a Fixed-term Parliaments Act to cement the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government . Under the rules of the Act the prime minister no longer had the authority to call elections at a time of his choosing . This power, on which his strong position in the Westminster democracy has rested in the past, was lost . This was one of the intentions of the advocates of the act . Furthermore, a fixed parliament was supposed to make British politics fairer, more inclusive, less confrontational, less tribal and less feeble . In the end the Act did not live up with these expectations . To some extent its flaws were responsible for the “Brexit Blunder” (Jo Murkens) . However, it also helped to frustrate any attempt by the Brexiteers to accomplish a no deal-Brexit . Part of this endeavor was the prorogation of Parliament which the Supreme Court adjudicated “unlawful” on 24 September 2019 . This judgment on the scope of the Royal prerogative is part of a transformation of the constitution that, accidentally, might have changed the role of the Crown in the constitutional fabric of the United Kingdom .","PeriodicalId":486211,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2023-3-658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When David Cameron wanted to become Prime Minister in 2010 he had to accept a Fixed-term Parliaments Act to cement the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government . Under the rules of the Act the prime minister no longer had the authority to call elections at a time of his choosing . This power, on which his strong position in the Westminster democracy has rested in the past, was lost . This was one of the intentions of the advocates of the act . Furthermore, a fixed parliament was supposed to make British politics fairer, more inclusive, less confrontational, less tribal and less feeble . In the end the Act did not live up with these expectations . To some extent its flaws were responsible for the “Brexit Blunder” (Jo Murkens) . However, it also helped to frustrate any attempt by the Brexiteers to accomplish a no deal-Brexit . Part of this endeavor was the prorogation of Parliament which the Supreme Court adjudicated “unlawful” on 24 September 2019 . This judgment on the scope of the Royal prerogative is part of a transformation of the constitution that, accidentally, might have changed the role of the Crown in the constitutional fabric of the United Kingdom .
2011年英国的固定协议条款。或者说是服从政策的后果
2010年,当戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)想成为英国首相时,他不得不接受《定期议会法案》(Fixed-term parliament Act),以巩固保守党与自由民主党的联合政府。根据该法案的规定,总理不再有权在他选择的时间召集选举。过去,他在威斯敏斯特民主中占据强势地位,而现在,他失去了这种权力。这是该法案倡导者的意图之一。此外,一个固定的议会本应使英国政治更公平、更包容、更少对抗、更少部落和更少软弱。最后,该法案没有达到这些期望。在某种程度上,它的缺陷导致了“脱欧大错”(乔·默肯斯)。然而,这也有助于挫败脱欧派达成无协议脱欧的任何企图。这一努力的一部分是议会休会,最高法院于2019年9月24日裁定议会休会“非法”。这一对王室特权范围的判断是宪法变革的一部分,它可能意外地改变了王室在联合王国宪法结构中的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书