DOCSLIB.ORG

The British Parliament-House of Commons Page 01

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT-HOUSE OF COMMONS PAGE 01 Table of Contents 1. Letter from the Chair 2. Introduction 3. Members of the Parliament (Delegate expectations) 4. Special procedure Topic: Counter terrorism in Great Britain a. History of terrorism in the United Kingdom b. Threat of terrorism at Home c. Role and Scope of the Security Agencies d. Border Security and Migrant Crisis 6. QARMAs 7. Recommended bibliography 8. References GOING BEYOND PAGE 2 1. Letter from the Chair. Dear Members of Parliament, It is our honour to welcome you to EAFITMUN and to the committee. We are Eduardo Tisnes Zapata, law student at EAFIT University and Federico Freydell Mesa, law student at El Rosario University, and we will be chairing EAFITMUN’s House of Commons. The last few years, have put this House under pressure for reasons involving the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, overseas and domestic terrorism and security crises; the flow of migrants from the Middle East and Africa and the lack of political consensus between the Government and the Opposition. The challenges you will face in the committee will not only require from you background academic knowledge, but they will demand your best abilities to negotiate between parties and to propose solutions that work best for the British people, meeting halfway and reaching across the House. As it is obvious we cannot have 650 MPs, therefore we will try to reproduce the Commons’ majorities and parties representation in the House. Nevertheless, no party will hold an overall majority, making solution and policymaking more challenging. Even though the main focus of this committee will be counter terrorism and border security, we expect the House to be able to address all sorts of issues that may arise. In addition we expect the highest level of debates, both in and out of the House Chamber, and the best bills you can propose and negotiate! Finally, and although this is an innovative and challenging committee, we hope that in the three days of debate and negotiation, you enjoy the EAFITMUN experience, meet new people and reach possible and innovative solutions. We are both looking forward to meeting you all, The Chair, Eduardo Tisnes Zapata Federico Freydell Mesa [email protected] [email protected] GOING BEYOND PAGE 3 2. Introduction The House of Commons is the lower house of the Through these functions,the House can have a close Parliament of the United Kingdom. In addition, it is control of Government. Nevertheless, regarding the public elected house of Parliament, in contrast some affairs of national security, the Government is to the House of Lords, where members are not obliged to inform or brief the House before. appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, who are hereditary peers or members of the Church of Making laws is a function shared with the Lords, England. The House is located in the Palace of albeit,n since 1911, the upper house lost its veto Westminster in London, and its official name is right over the Commons, and was restricted in its the Honourable the Commons of the United capacity to delay legislation. Nonetheless, while Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in laws may origin in the Lords as well, since 1911 Parliament Assembled (Parliament, 2018). important laws come from the Commons and are usually approved by the peers. Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected in general elections that are usually heldevery 5 years. Historically, snap elections could be called at any moment by the Prime Minister; however, after the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 2.1. History (Parliament, 2011), those powers were greatly Although the origins of Parliament can be traced limited. Today, snap elections can be called after back to the Norman Conquest and the reign of King the Parliament is dissolved as a result of a non William I, the most relevant event occurred in 1215, confidence vote (which usually occurs in the case with the sealing of Magna Carta by King John I. The of a hung parliament or political gridlock), or Great Charter (alternative name given to Magna through the vote of two-thirds of the vote of Carta) was the result of ten days of negotiations Parliament. A hung Parliament occurs when no between the King and rebel Barons; the Barons had party has an overall majority of 326 MPs. revolted over the excessive taxation and the governance of the King. Even though the King had The main four functions of the House consist in an organised administrative system (Britannica, (a) checking and challenging the work of the 2018), the Barons pushed as well for the Government, (b) making and amending laws, (c) recognition of individual liberties and the debating current affairs relevant to the country acknowledging that law applied to everyone, and (d) revising Government spending and funding including the Monarch. The Charter of 1215 was the (Parliament, 2018). first of a series of documents declaring the “rule of law” in England, setting the foundations for a representative government. GOING BEYOND PAGE 4 Parliamentary rights over the Crown were In 1911 the Parliament Act was passed after the reaserted in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution. Lord’s rejection of the “People’s Budget”; the Act One year later Parliament passed the Bill of removed the Lord’s right to veto bills coming from Rights, a declaration that embodied a series of the Commons. The House of Lords can now only individual liberties and public duties related to delay legislation related to money by one month and religion and the Crown. In 1707 both Parliaments other legislation by two years. They can only veto of England and Scotland passed the Acts of Union, bills extending the life of Parliament. Although, bills uniting England and Scotland and giving birth to may originate from any House, important bills Great Britain, both Parliaments united and for the usually come from the Commons. first time 45 Scottish MPs sat at Westminster (Parliament, 2010). Post-war Parliament was not reformed very often. PM Harold Macmillan introduced Prime Minister’s As King George II, from the House of Hannover, Questions in 1961, where the entire House can lived outside the country, he appointed Robert inquire the Government on current affairs, a Walpole First Lord of the Treasury, he was in tradition that has been held weekly by all charge of His Majesty’s Government and thus, Governments ever since. Since then, the House of considered to be the first Prime Minister (PM). Commons has sought to be more open to the public, The position of Prime Minister has existed ever allowing strangers to enter the House as spectators since under the principle of “primus inter pares”, and broadcasting debates by radio and television first among equals; for this, the Prime Minister since 1990. Under the Blair Government and its has always been a member of either house of policy of devolution of powers, extensive Parliament and holds the office of the First Lord prerogatives were transferred to the Scottish of the Treasury as well. As it happened with Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scotland, the Act of Union of 1800 unified the National Assembly for Wales in 1999. That same Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland; 100 Irish year, the House of Lords Act gets Royal Assent, this MPs were sent to Westminster. In 1801, the first restricted the number of hereditary peers to 92 in Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain the House of Lords (Parliament, 2010). and Ireland met (Parliament, 2010). GOING BEYOND PAGE 5 2.2. The House of Lords 2.3. The Westminster System The House of Lords is the upper house of the The Westminster System (WS) is the government Parliament of the United Kingdom. As stated system ruling the United Kingdom and most of the before, it has lost power in relation to the Commonwealth of Nations’ member states. It gets Commons, but still, they can propose new laws its name from the tradition of government at and debate on proposed bills by the Commons. Westminster Palace, that is of course, the British They can still delay legislation and hold the Parliament (Public Service Commission of NSW, Government accountable. Even though the House 2013). Although the United Kingdom does not have of Lords still holds a significant role, the House of a written constitution, the group of laws and Commons can pass bills and can seek directly traditions have developed the system and have set Royal Assent without consulting the Lords. it as the structure of our government and political Although the Lords can attend Commons’ sessions, system. they cannot vote or speak. The Queen, who can sit and participate at the House of Lords cannot The Westminster System (WS) has the following enter the Commons’ Chamber. Members of the characteristics (Public Service Commission of NSW, Royal Family holding titles of dukes, marquesses, 2013) (they have been adapted to the United earls, viscounts, barons or baronets are entitled to Kingdom): sit at the House of Lords. a. A head of state. In the UK, Her Majesty (HM) Its members can either be part of party or be Queen Elizabeth II. As a constitutional monarch, HM crossbenchers, not officially joining a political the Queen holds limited political, but large party. As the House of Commons, the House of ceremonial powers. In other countries with the WS Lords has a Lord Speaker, elected among the the head of state might have the title of President, members of the House. Governor-General, etc. The House of Lords is made up of 785 peers that b.
Recommended publications
  • EU and Member States' Policies and Laws on Persons Suspected Of

    EU and Member States' Policies and Laws on Persons Suspected Of

    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS EU and Member States’ policies and laws on persons suspected of terrorism- related crimes STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee), presents an overview of the legal and policy framework in the EU and 10 select EU Member States on persons suspected of terrorism-related crimes. The study analyses how Member States define suspects of terrorism- related crimes, what measures are available to state authorities to prevent and investigate such crimes and how information on suspects of terrorism-related crimes is exchanged between Member States. The comparative analysis between the 10 Member States subject to this study, in combination with the examination of relevant EU policy and legislation, leads to the development of key conclusions and recommendations. PE 596.832 EN 1 ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation
  • Letter to Home Secretary.Pdf

    Letter to Home Secretary.Pdf

    62 Britton Street London EC1M 5UY United Kingdom Phone +44 (0)20 3422 4321 www.privacyinternational.org Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP Home Secretary Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Sent by email: [email protected] CC: Investigatory Powers Tribunal 25 September 2018 Dear Sajid Javid We are writing to express our grave concern and to request your urgent action following today's disclosures regarding the interception of data by the Security and Intelligence Agencies (SIA), including their alarming acquisition and retention of data relating to Privacy International and/or its employees. Privacy International (PI) is a registered charity based in London that works at the intersection of modern technologies and rights. Privacy International challenges overreaching state and corporate surveillance, so that people everywhere can have greater security and freedom through greater personal privacy. Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al. As you will be aware, in June 2015 PI commenced a challenge at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal against the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the SIA regarding the acquisition, use, retention, disclosure, storage and deletion of 'Bulk Personal Datasets' (BPDs) and Bulk Communications Data (BCDs). These databases and datasets contain vast amounts of personal data about individuals, the majority of whom are unlikely to be of intelligence interest. For example, BPDs held by the SIA include passport databases, travel data, and finance-related activity of individuals, while BCDs (the "who, when, where, and how" of both telephone and internet use) include location information and call data for everyone's mobile telephones in the UK for 1 year.
  • Download PDF on Financial Privilege

    Download PDF on Financial Privilege

    Report Financial Privilege The Undoubted and Sole Right of the Commons? Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA Richard Reid PhD FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE THE UNDOUBTED AND SOLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS? By Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA and Richard Reid PhD Acknowlegements The authors thank The Constitution Society for commissioning and publishing this paper. First published in Great Britain in 2016 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-0-9 © Malcolm Jack and Richard Reid 2016. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE 3 Contents Acknowlegements 2 About the Authors 4 Summary 5 PART 1 Conventions in Respect of Financial Privilege 6 PART 2 Parliament Acts 19 PART 3 Handling of Bills with Financial Provisions 30 PART 4 Secondary Legislation 41 PART 5 The Strathclyde Review 51 Appendix 1 Parliament Act 1911 62 Appendix 2 Parliament Act 1949 67 4 FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE About the Authors Sir Malcolm Jack was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006–2011. He is editor of the current, twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 2011. He lectures and writes on constitutional and historical subjects, having published widely on the history of ideas as well as on aspects of British, European and South African history.
  • The Erosion of Parliamentary Government

    The Erosion of Parliamentary Government

    The Erosion of Parliamentary Government JOHN MAJOR CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 57 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL 2003 THE AUTHOR THE RT HON JOHN MAJOR CH was Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1990 to 1997, having previously served as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon from 1979 to 2001. Since leaving politics, he has returned to business in the private sector. He also lectures around the world and is active in many charities. The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation. The views expressed in our publications are, however, the sole responsibility of the authors. Contributions are chosen for their value in informing public debate and should not be taken as representing a corporate view of the CPS or of its Directors. The CPS values its independence and does not carry on activities with the intention of affecting public support for any registered political party or for candidates at election, or to influence voters in a referendum. ISBN No. 1 903219 62 0 Centre for Policy Studies, October 2003 Printed by The Chameleon Press, 5 – 25 Burr Road, London SW18 CONTENTS Prologue 1. The Decline of Democracy 1 2. The Decline of Parliament 3 3. The Politicisation of the Civil Service 9 4. The Manipulation of Government Information 12 5.
  • Constitution of the Republic of TRINIDAD and TOBAGO ACT

    Constitution of the Republic of TRINIDAD and TOBAGO ACT

    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt CONSTITuTION OF The RePuBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ACT ChAPTeR 1:01 Act 4 of 1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–2 .. 3–16 .. 1/2009 17–28 .. 29–54 .. 1/2009 55–58 .. 59–64 .. 1/2009 65–66 .. 67–84 .. 1/2009 85–86 .. 87–92 .. 1/2009 93–96 .. 97–120 .. 1/2009 121–132 .. 133–190 .. 1/2009 191–204 .. L.R.O. UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Constitution of the Republic 2 Chap. 1:01 of Trinidad and Tobago Index of Subsidiary Legislation Page Existing Laws Amendment Order (GN 8/1962) … … … … 17 Existing Laws Amendment Order (GN 97/1963) … … … 19 Existing Laws Modification Order (GN 136/1976) … … … 22 Letters Patent Establishing the Distinguished Society of Trinidad and Tobago (110/1983) …… … … … … … 23 Electoral College Regulations (GN 187/1976) … … … … 29 Public Service Commission (Delegation of Powers) Order (GN 158/1966) … 41 Teaching Service Commission (Delegation of Powers) Order (GN 88/1969)… 55 Public Service Commission Regulations (GN 132/1966)… … … 57 Police Service Commission Regulations (GN 131/1966)… … … 131 Appointment of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Qualification and Selection Criteria) Order (LN 165/2007) … 172 Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process) Order (LN 166/2007) … … … … … … 174 Public Service Appeal Board Regulations (GN 74/1978) … … … 177 Police Service Commission (Appeal) Regulations … … … 191 Note on Schedule The Constitution which was originally enacted as the Schedule to this Act has been published independently (at the beginning of this Edition and immediately before this Chapter).
  • Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects

    Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects

    Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects A report prepared for the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum January 2011 The Constitutional Design Group Principals Zachary Elkins | [email protected] Tom Ginsburg | [email protected] Lead Research Associate Justin Blount | [email protected] The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of CPPF or the Social Science Research Council. Constitutional Reform in the ESC p. 2 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Perspectives on Constitutional Reform in the ESC ................................................. 4 Decolonization and the Independece Constitutions ............................................................... 4 The Rise and Fall of the West Indies Federation ................................................................... 5 Characteristics of ESC Constitutions ......................................................................................... 6 Some General Notes on the Nature of ESC Constitutional Texts ......................................... 7 Executives, Legislatures, and the Judiciary ........................................................................... 8 Fidelity to the Westminster Parliamentary System ........................................................... 8 The Judiciary .....................................................................................................................
  • Appendix 3 Chronology of Events Surrounding Increased Security

    Appendix 3 Chronology of Events Surrounding Increased Security

    Appendix 3 Chronology of events surrounding increased security measures Notable European terror related incidents • Nov 2015 – Paris Attacks. 130 killed and 413 injured by suicide bombers and mass shootings • March 2016 – Brussels Bombing. 35 killed and 300 injured by suicide bomber • July 2016 – Nice attacks. 86 killed and 458 injured by a cargo truck driven into crowds • Dec 2016 – Berlin Xmas market attack. 12 killed and 56 injured by a truck driven into crowds • Aug 2017 – Barcelona attack. 13 killed and 130 injured by truck driven into crowds Recent British terror related incidents • May 2013 A British soldier, Lee Rigby, was murdered in an attack by two Islamist extremists • June 2016 MP Jo Cox murdered by white nationist • March 2017 Westminster attack - Islamist, drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge. 4 killed and 50 injured. A police officer killed in the grounds of the Palace of Westminster • May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing – An Islamist suicide bomber, blew himself up at Manchester Arena, 22 killed and 139 injured • June 2017 London Bridge attack – Three Islamists drove a van into pedestrians on London bridge before stabbing. Eight people were killed and at least 48 wounded • June 2017 Finsbury Park attack –a British man, drove a van into Muslim worshippers near Finsbury Park Mosque, London Recent Guildhall security related incidents. Evidence cycle thefts and anti-social related incidents surrounding rough sleepers in the area that have not formally been reported. • Feb 2014 - Planned demonstration at full council. Demonstration prevented by joint operation between Facilities and Police to monitor building access. • Feb 2015 – Planned demonstration at full council.
  • Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications

    Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications

    Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications Jessica R. Adolino, Ph. D. Professor of Political Science James Madison University Draft prepared for presentation at the European Studies Association Annual Meeting May 9-12, 2019, Denver, Colorado Please do not cite or distribute without author’s permission. By almost any measure, since the immediate aftermath of the June 16, 2016 Brexit referendum, the British government has been in a state of chaos. The turmoil began with then- Prime Minister David Cameron’s resignation on June 17 and succession by Theresa May within days of the vote. Subsequently, May’s decision to call a snap election in 2017 and the resulting loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority cast doubt on her leadership and further stirred up dissension in her party’s ranks. Perhaps more telling, and the subject of this paper, is the unprecedented number of ministers1—from both senior and junior ranks—that quit the May government over Brexit-related policy disagreements2. Between June 12, 2017 and April 3, 2019, the government witnessed 45 resignations, with high-profile secretaries of state and departmental ministers stepping down to return to the backbenches. Of these, 34 members of her government, including 9 serving in the Cabinet, departed over issues with some aspect of Brexit, ranging from dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement, to disagreements about the proper role of Parliament, to questions about the legitimacy of the entire Brexit process. All told, Theresa May lost more ministers, and at a more rapid pace, than any other prime minister in modern times.
  • The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

    The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

    jftLVªh lañ Mhñ ,yñ—(,u)04@0007@2003—21 REGISTERED NO. DL—(N)04/0007/2003—21 सी.जी.-डी.एल.-अ.-13082021-228989xxxGIDHxxx CG-DL-E-13082021-228989xxxGIDExxx vlk/kkj.k EXTRAORDINARY Hkkx II — [k.M 1 PART II — Section 1 izkf/kdkj ls izdkf'kr PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY lañ 45] ubZ fnYyh] 'kqØokj] vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1943 ¼'kd½ No. 45] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 2021/SRAVANA 22, 1943 (SAKA) bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g vyx ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk ldsA Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation. MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 13th August, 2021/ Sravana 22, 1943 (Saka) The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 13th August, 2021, and is hereby published for general information:— THE TRIBUNALS REFORMS ACT, 2021 NO. 33 OF 2021 [13th August, 2021.] An Act further to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Customs Act, 1962, the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 and certain other Acts. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-second Year of the Republic of India as follows: — CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. (1) This Act may be called the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Short title and commencement. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th April, 2021. 2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II— Definitions.
  • The European Parliament and Environmental Legislation: the Case of Chemicals

    The European Parliament and Environmental Legislation: the Case of Chemicals

    European Journal of Political Research 36: 119–154, 1999. 119 © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The European Parliament and environmental legislation: The case of chemicals GEORGE TSEBELIS & ANASTASSIOS KALANDRAKIS University of California, Los Angeles, USA Abstract. The paper studies the impact of the EP on legislation on chemical pollutants in- troduced under the Cooperation procedure. A series of formal and informal analyses have predicted from significant impact of the EP, to limited impact (only in the second round) to no impact at all. Through the analysis of Parliamentary debates as well as Commission and Parliamentary committee documents, we are able to assess the significance of different amendments, as well as the degree to which they were introduced in the final decision of the Council. Our analysis indicates first that less than 30% of EP amendments are insignificant, while 15% are important or very important; second, that the probability of acceptance of an amendment is the same regardless of its significance. Further analysis indicates two sources of bias of aggregate EP statistics: several amendments are complementary (deal with the same issue in different places of the legal document), and a series of amendments that are rejected as inadmissible (because they violate the legal basis of the document or the germainess require- ment) are included in subsequent pieces of legislation. We calculate the effect of these biases in our sample, and find that official statistics underestimate Parliamentary influence by more than 6 percentage points (49% instead of 56% in our sample). Finally, we compare a series of observed strategic behaviors of different actors (rapporteurs, committees, floor, Commission) to different expectations generated by the literature.
  • The Movement for the Reformation of Manners, 1688-1715

    The Movement for the Reformation of Manners, 1688-1715

    THE MOVEMENT FOR THE REFORMATION OF MANNERS, 1688-1715 ANDREW GORDON CRAIG 1980 (reset and digitally formatted 2015) PREFACE TO THE 2015 VERSION This study was completed in the pre-digital era and since then has been relatively inaccessible to researchers. To help rectify that, the 1980 typescript submitted for the degree of PhD from Edinburgh University has been reset and formatted in Microsoft “Word” and Arial 12pt as an easily readable font and then converted to a read-only PDF file for circulation. It is now more compact than the original typescript version and fully searchable. Some minor typographical errors have been corrected but no material published post-1980 has been added except in the postscript (see below). Pagination in the present version does not correspond to the original because of computerised resetting of the text. Footnotes in this version are consecutive throughout, rather than chapter by chapter as required in the 1980 version. The original bound copy is lodged in Edinburgh University Library. A PDF scan of it is available at https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk /bitstream/handle/1842/6840/254333.pdf A further hand-corrected copy is available together with my research archive in the Special Collections Department at St Andrews University Library. http://www.st- andrews.ac.uk/library/specialcollections/ A note for researchers interested in the movement for the reformation of manners 1688-1715 and afterwards has been added as a postscript which lists other studies which have utilised this work and its sources in various ways. I am grateful to the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland for its generous scholarship support while a research student at Edinburgh University undertaking this study in the 1970s and to the following for their encouragement, guidance and support during the creation and completion of this research.
  • The Icelandic Federalist Papers

    The Icelandic Federalist Papers

    The Icelandic Federalist Papers No. 16: The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles To the People of Iceland: Before examining the republican character of the new plan, it is first necessary to explain the meanings of the terms and their relevance to the standards fixed in Iceland. The term republic originates from Latin “res publica,” “the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic,” liter- ally res publica “public interest, the state,” from res “affair, matter, thing” combined with publi- ca, feminine of publicus or “public.”1 From a constitutional perspective, a republic is a country in which the head of state’s position is not hereditary.2 The president (or other chief executive) may be elected, appointed, or nominated to exercise the head of state position. This concept is the opposite of a kingdom, in which a monarch exercises power because of filiation. Historically, the term “republic” was first used in ancient Rome and thereafter where power was not exercised by a royal family, as for example in the case of Venice. The term may refer to a system that is neither monarchical nor imperial. A republic does not necessarily mean democracy since the president may be designated through authority; there are many examples of undemocratic republics among Latin American dictatorships or in the former USSR. The founda- tions of a republic are based on a will, a desire to represent the social body. It also has a norma- tive meaning connected to a judgment of values and the possibility for people to exercise their sovereignty. Even though the idea of both democracy and constitutional government emerged in Athens, the first known city republic took shape around 506 BC in India where, for the first time, a ruler was elected.