UKIMA as red flag symptom of constitutional ill-health: devolved autonomy and legislative consent

Christopher McCorkindale
{"title":"UKIMA as red flag symptom of constitutional ill-health: devolved autonomy and legislative consent","authors":"Christopher McCorkindale","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Devolution is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom (UK) constitution – a ‘new settlement’, as Tony Blair put it, that at once responded to the democratic demand to ‘[bring] decision-making … closer to the people who felt a strong sense of identity’ and also, in so doing, ‘to ward off the bigger threat of secession’. At the heart of that principle is respect for devolved autonomy; that, within the devolved sphere, it is the devolved authorities who are best placed to wield primary and secondary law-making powers free from interference from the centre. The constitutional safeguard for devolved autonomy is a political rule: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature(s). Until the process to withdraw the UK from the European Union (EU) began, the convention was well defined, well understood and well respected. However, the UK Government’s centripetal approach to EU withdrawal and to the resulting realignment of the UK constitution has marked a significant step change. In this article I take seriously the claim made by the Institute for Government that the UK Internal Market Act 2020 is the most contentious example – a red flag symptom – of damaging new constitutional dynamics: the increased willingness of the UK Parliament and UK Government to intervene in devolved matters without devolved consent. At stake as a result is not only the efficient operation of the UK internal market but, recalling Blair, the very survival of the union itself.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"14 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1093","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

Devolution is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom (UK) constitution – a ‘new settlement’, as Tony Blair put it, that at once responded to the democratic demand to ‘[bring] decision-making … closer to the people who felt a strong sense of identity’ and also, in so doing, ‘to ward off the bigger threat of secession’. At the heart of that principle is respect for devolved autonomy; that, within the devolved sphere, it is the devolved authorities who are best placed to wield primary and secondary law-making powers free from interference from the centre. The constitutional safeguard for devolved autonomy is a political rule: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature(s). Until the process to withdraw the UK from the European Union (EU) began, the convention was well defined, well understood and well respected. However, the UK Government’s centripetal approach to EU withdrawal and to the resulting realignment of the UK constitution has marked a significant step change. In this article I take seriously the claim made by the Institute for Government that the UK Internal Market Act 2020 is the most contentious example – a red flag symptom – of damaging new constitutional dynamics: the increased willingness of the UK Parliament and UK Government to intervene in devolved matters without devolved consent. At stake as a result is not only the efficient operation of the UK internal market but, recalling Blair, the very survival of the union itself.
英国IMA作为宪政不健康的红旗症状:下放自治权和立法同意权
权力下放是《联合王国宪法》的一项基本原则--正如托尼-布莱尔(Tony Blair)所说,这是一项 "新的解决方案",既响应了 "使决策......更贴近具有强烈认同感的人民 "的民主要求,同时也 "避免了更大的分裂威胁"。这一原则的核心是尊重分权自治;在分权范围内,分权当局最有资格行使主要和次要立法权,不受中央干预。对分权自治的宪法保障是一项政治规则:未经相关分权立法机构同意,英国议会通常不会就分权事务立法。在英国退出欧盟(EU)的进程开始之前,该公约一直得到很好的界定、理解和尊重。然而,英国政府对退出欧盟以及由此产生的英国宪法调整所采取的向心力方式标志着一个重大的转变。在这篇文章中,我认真对待英国政府研究所(Institute for Government)提出的主张,即《2020 年英国内部市场法案》是破坏性新宪法动态的最有争议的例子--红旗症状:英国议会和英国政府越来越愿意在未经地方政府同意的情况下干预地方事务。这不仅关系到英国内部市场的有效运作,而且关系到欧盟本身的存亡。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信