DOCSLIB.ORG

Bordering Two Unions: Northern Ireland and Brexit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bordering Two Unions: Northern Ireland and Brexit A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics de Mars, Sylvia; Murray, Colin; O'Donoghue, Aiofe; Warwick, Ben Book — Published Version Bordering two unions: Northern Ireland and Brexit Policy Press Shorts: Policy & Practice Provided in Cooperation with: Bristol University Press Suggested Citation: de Mars, Sylvia; Murray, Colin; O'Donoghue, Aiofe; Warwick, Ben (2018) : Bordering two unions: Northern Ireland and Brexit, Policy Press Shorts: Policy & Practice, ISBN 978-1-4473-4622-7, Policy Press, Bristol, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv56fh0b This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/190846 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ www.econstor.eu SYLVIA de MARS, COLIN MURRAY, AOIFE O’DONOGHUE, BEN WARWICK BORDERING TWOA SHARING UNIONS ECONOMY Northern Ireland and Brexit POLICY PRESSPOLICY & PRACT ICE SYLVIA de MARS COLIN MURRAY AOIFE O’DONOGHUE BEN WARWICK BORDERING TWO UNIONS Northern Ireland and Brexit POLICY PRESSPOLICY & PRACT ICE First published in Great Britain in 2018 by Policy Press North America office: University of Bristol Policy Press 1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press Bristol 1427 East 60th Street BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA UK t: +1 773 702 7700 t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773 702 9756 [email protected] [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu © Policy Press 2018 The digital PDF version of this title is available Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits adaptation, alteration, reproduction and distribution for non-commercial use, without further permission provided the original work is attributed. The derivative works do not need to be licensed on the same terms. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN 978-1-4473-1724-1 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-4473-4620-3 (ePub) ISBN 978-1-4473-4621-0 (Mobi) ISBN 978-1-4473-4622-7 (OA PDF) The right of Sylvia de Mars, Colin Murray, Aoife O’Donoghue and Ben Warwick to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press Front cover: image kindly supplied by Alamy Printed and bound in Great Britain by CMP, Poole Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners Contents Acknowledgements v Glossary vii Abbreviations ix one A tale of two unions 1 two Navigating the Irish border 11 three Trade 23 four Citizenship 57 five Justice and rights 83 six Constitutional change 115 seven A place apart 151 Bibliography 161 Index 187 III Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (grant ref. ES/ M500513/1), which made this book possible. Our three universities – Birmingham, Durham and Newcastle – have supported us in various ways in the process of writing this book and in the years of research prior to it. We owe much to the many colleagues in our own universities and elsewhere who have been sounding boards, sources of inspiration and moral supporters. We have enjoyed the input of more people than could be mentioned here, but we are especially appreciative of thought- provoking questions and comments we received from Kevin Brown, John Curtis, Elektra Garvie-Adams, Katy Hayward, Holger Hestermeyer, Paula Kelly, Daithí Mac Síthigh, Roger Masterman, Claire McCann and Sam Lowe. We would also like to thank staff at Warwick Law School, the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, the Transitional Justice Institute at Ulster University and Oxford’s Programme for the Foundations of Law and Constitutional Government for letting us test some of the ideas in this book at staff seminars. We were also fortunate to receive detailed comments from our anonymous reviewers. We very much appreciate the research assistance provided by Sumaiyah Kholwadia, Sarah Jane Price and Sophie Doherty, the assistance of Tina Martin in preparing the manuscript, and all the team at Policy Press (especially Helen Davis and V BORDERING TWO UNIONS Rebecca Tomlinson) for their work on the project. On Twitter, @ gavmacn put us on to our cover image; a gate without a fence is fast becoming a pretty good metaphor for some of the more bizarre attempts to find a solution to the conundrum that the Irish border poses for Brexit. Finally, our thanks are due to our (long-suffering) families and friends, who, by now, understand too much about customs unions and categories of rights holder. Their support and understanding kept us going, particularly at those crunch moments when we did not have a lot of support for each other to spare. In the fast-moving context of Brexit, we have sought to bring our account up to date as of 1 June 2018, but have been able to incorporate some further updates thanks to the efforts of the Policy Press team. Sylvia, Colin, Aoife and Ben June 2018 VI Glossary Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR): The EU’s human rights document. All EU law must meet its standards and those standards are significant, going beyond what otherwise exists in UK law. Common Travel Area: An umbrella term for a scattering of understandings and reciprocal agreements between the UK and Ireland (and surrounding islands) regarding rights and respect for each other’s citizens. Customs union: When countries in an FTA agree to apply a single customs policy to outsider (or ‘third’) countries at their external borders. Dáil: This is the name for the directly elected lower house of the Irish Parliament/Oireachtas. European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: The first major piece of law to make its way through the UK Parliament to facilitate Brexit. Parliamentarians have made and attempted many amendments to it. At the time of writing, it has not been concluded as law. Free trade agreement (FTA): An agreement between two or more countries not to apply customs charges to (certain) goods at their shared border. Garda: An Garda Síochána is the official name of the Irish police force. Good Friday Agreement (GFA): Formally known as the Belfast Agreement, this is the 1998 peace agreement for VII BORDERING TWO UNIONS Northern Ireland, approved by referenda North and South of the border. Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland: On independence in 1922, Ireland was known as the Irish Free State/Saorstát Éireann. On the passing of the 1937 Constitution, the state became known as Ireland/Éire. Republic of Ireland is a description of Ireland that came out of the Republic of Ireland Act 1949; however, it is not the official name of the state. Joint Report: The agreement between the UK and EU in December 2017 that marked ‘significant progress’ on major negotiating issues. Oireachtas: This is the collective name for the joint houses of the Irish Parliament, the Dáil and the Seanad. Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: An annex to the Withdrawal Agreement specifically addressing the island of Ireland. It is not yet binding, but has substantial agreement in principle or on an exact form of proposed text. Seanad: This is the name for the largely indirectly elected upper house of the Irish Parliament/Oireachtas. Single market: A further agreement between the countries in an FTA or a customs union that goes beyond customs matters and, instead, focuses on the development of shared regulations, standards and institutions. (The European Union [EU] Single Market is also regularly called the ‘Common Market’ or the ‘Internal Market’.) Stormont: A name used as shorthand for the Northern Ireland Assembly (since 1998) and for the earlier Northern Ireland Parliament (1921–72). Tánaiste: The title of the Irish Deputy Prime Minister. Taoiseach: The title of the Irish Prime Minister. Withdrawal Agreement: The draft legal text produced by the EU to transpose the Joint Report into legal provisions. It is currently not concluded or fully agreed, and either the UK or EU could still walk away from it to cause a ‘no-deal’ Brexit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Opposition-Craft': an Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitte
    ‘Opposition-Craft’: An Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds, School of Politics and International Studies May, 2020 1 Intellectual Property and Publications Statements The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2020 The University of Leeds and Edward Henry Lack The right of Edward Henry Lack to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 2 Acknowledgements Page I would like to thank Dr Victoria Honeyman and Dr Timothy Heppell of the School of Politics and International Studies, The University of Leeds, for their support and guidance in the production of this work. I would also like to thank my partner, Dr Ben Ramm and my parents, David and Linden Lack, for their encouragement and belief in my efforts to undertake this project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge those who took part in the research for this PhD thesis: Lord David Steel, Lord David Owen, Lord Chris Smith, Lord Andrew Adonis, Lord David Blunkett and Dame Caroline Spelman. 3 Abstract This thesis offers a distinctive and innovative framework for the study of effective official opposition politics in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Development- Displacement Nexus in Turkey
    Assessing the Development- Displacement Nexus in Turkey Working Paper Fulya Memişoğlu November 2018 Assessing the Development- Displacement Nexus in Turkey Working Paper Acknowledgements This report is an output of the project Study on Refugee Protection and Development: Assessing the Development-Displacement Nexus in Regional Protection Policies, funded by the OPEC Fund for Inter- national Development (OFID) and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD). The author and ICMPD gratefully acknowledge OFID’s support. While no fieldwork was conducted for this report, the author thanks the Turkey Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM) of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Development, ICMPD Tur- key and the Refugee Studies Centre of Oxford University for their valuable inputs to previous research, which contributed to the author’s work. The author also thanks Maegan Hendow for her valuable feedback on this report. International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) Gonzagagasse 1 A-1010 Vienna www.icmpd.com International Centre for Migration Policy Development Vienna, Austria All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the copyright owners. The content of this study does not reflect the official opinion of OFID or ICMPD. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the study lies entirely with the author. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \ 3 Contents Acknowledgements 3 Acronyms 6 1. Introduction 7 1.1 The Syrian crisis and Turkey 7 2. Refugee populations in Turkey 9 2.1 Country overview 9 2.2 Evolution and dynamics of the Syrian influx in Turkey 11 2.3 Characteristics of the Syrian refugee population 15 2.4 Legal status issues 17 2.5 Other relevant refugee flows 19 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Nations Impartiality Review: an Analysis of Reporting Devolution
    APPENDIX A Four Nations Impartiality Review: An analysis of reporting devolution Report authors Prof. Justin Lewis Dr. Stephen Cushion Dr. Chris Groves Lucy Bennett Sally Reardon Emma Wilkins Rebecca Williams Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University 1 Contents Page 1. Introduction and Overview 2. General sample 3. Case studies 4. Reporting the 2007 elections 5. Current Affairs Coverage 2007 6. Five Live Phone-In Programmes (Oct-Nov and Election Samples) 7. Devolution Stories on BBC Six O’Clock News and 6.30pm Opt- Outs 8. Omissions 9. Devolution online: Focus groups 10. Bibliography 11. Appendix 2 1. Introduction and Overview The scope of the study The central aim of the study was to examine how devolution is reported in UK-wide BBC network television and radio news, BBC network factual programmes and BBC online news. This analysis took place within the broad framework of questions about impartiality and accuracy, and asked whether the coverage of the four nations is balanced, accurate and helpful in understanding the new political world of devolved government. The focus of the study fell on the coverage of politics in the broadest sense, including the impact of specific policies and debates over the future of devolution, rather than being limited to the reporting of the everyday business of politics within Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont. We conducted two substantive pieces of content analysis. The first was based on a sample of four weeks of news coverage gathered during an eight week period in October and November 2007. This involved 4,687 news items across a wide range of BBC and non-BBC outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security: the Role of the U.S. Border Patrol
    Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol Chad C. Haddal Specialist in Immigration Policy August 11, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32562 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol Summary The United States Border Patrol (USBP) has a long and storied history as our nation’s first line of defense against unauthorized migration. Today, the USBP’s primary mission is to detect and prevent the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and illegal aliens into the country, and to interdict drug smugglers and other criminals along the border. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service and placed the USBP within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Within DHS, the USBP forms a part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. During the last decade, the USBP has seen its budget and manpower more than triple. This expansion was the direct result of congressional concerns about illegal immigration and the agency’s adoption of “Prevention Through Deterrence” as its chief operational strategy in 1994. The strategy called for placing USBP resources and manpower directly at the areas of greatest illegal immigration in order to detect, deter, and apprehend aliens attempting to cross the border between official points of entry. Post 9/11, the USBP refocused its strategy on preventing the entry of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, as laid out in its recently released National Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Khachatrian. Economic Impacts of Re-Opening the Armenian-Turkish
    Economic Impacts of Re-Opening the Armenian-Turkish Border By Haroutiun Khachatrian 1 The economic consequences of the possible re-opening of the Armenian-Turkish border will appear quickly and will mean a rapid improvement for both countries, but especially for Armenia. The current economic relationships between Armenia and Turkey can be characterized in short as follows: Turkey exports goods to Armenia worth some 260 million dollars a year, whereas imports of Armenian goods to Turkey are worth a mere 1.9 million dollars (data of 2008). In other words, the Armenian market is open for Turkish goods, while the opposite is not true, as Turkey applies a de-facto embargo (not declared officially) to imports from Armenia. All of this cargo transfer is chanelled through third countries, mainly Georgia. This shows the first possible benefit for Armenia once the de-facto embargo is lifted. The huge Turkish market, a country of 70 million, would become available for Armenian exporters. Meanwhile, today the immediate markets available for Armenian goods are only the market of Armenia itself (3.2 million people) and Georgia (4.5 million), both being poor countries which restricts the volume of the market. Two other neighbors of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran are practically inaccessible for Armenian exports, the former for political reasons and the latter because of high trade barriers. Along these lines, opening the Turkish market to Armenia would greatly improve the investment rating of Armenia as the limited volumes of markets nearby make it a risky site for investments, today. 1 The author is an analyst and editor with the Yerevan based news agency Noyan Tapan.
    [Show full text]
  • A Year in Review, the Year Ahead
    2018: A YEAR IN REVIEW, 2019: THE YEAR AHEAD Foreword from Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Senior Adviser, FTI Consulting 2018 was the most unpredictable and tumultuous year in politics … since 2017. Which was the most unpredictable and tumultuous year in politics … since 2016. And there’s no sign of let-up as we move into 2019. The unresolved questions of Brexit - how? when? whether at all? - will inevitably dominate the coming year. Even if Theresa May brings back from Brussels a new political declaration sufficiently compelling to command a majority in Parliament - a highly unlikely prospect at the time of writing - the end of March will mean the start of a fresh, complex round of negotiations on a future trade deal, conducted under the shadow of the Irish backstop. For most people, that would be preferable to the collapse of Mrs May’s deal and, almost inevitably, the collapse of her government and a subsequent constitutional crisis. Faced with the choice between revoking Article 50 or leaving the European Union (EU) without a deal, the Commons could well produce a majority for a new referendum. Under the pressure of a leadership contest, the personal and political rancour in the Conservative Party could finally break apart Europe’s hitherto most successful party of government. A no-confidence vote that would be defeated today could command enough votes from the Brexiteers’ kamikaze tendency to force another General Election. And Labour - with most of its moderates MPs replaced by Corbynistas in last-minute candidate selections - could win on a ‘cake and eat it’ manifesto of a Brexit that would end free movement but provide frictionless trade (Irish backstop, anyone?).
    [Show full text]
  • Open Or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights Elizabeth M
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 96 | Issue 2 Article 3 2007 Open or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights Elizabeth M. Bruch Valparaiso University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Bruch, Elizabeth M. (2007) "Open or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 96 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol96/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights Elizabeth M. Bruch' "We are living in a time when civil rights, meaning basic human rights, are being reformulated, redefined, and extended to new categories of people." Roger Nett (1971) "We should not be afraid of open borders." 3 Bill Ong Hing (2006) INTRODUCTION O PEN borders have not been a popular idea in the United States for at least a century.4 Since the federal government became involved in immigration regulation in the late 1800s, the history of immigration policy has generally been one of increasing restrictions and limitations.5 I Associate Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law; Visiting Scholar, Centre for Feminist Legal Studies, Law Faculty, University of British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision Notice
    Reference: FS50718217 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 12 June 2019 Public Authority: Mid & East Antrim Borough Council Address: The Braid 1-29 Bridge Street Ballymena BT43 5EJ Decision (including any steps ordered) 1. The complainant has requested information from Mid & East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) about its attendance at a dinner hosted by Ian Paisley, MP. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing the exemption at section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the names of local business people it had invited to attend the dinner as its guests. However, she found that it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the names of the Council employees who attended the dinner. The Commissioner also found breaches of section 1 and section 17 of the FOIA with regard to the Council’s handling of the request. 3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the names of all Council employees who attended the dinner. 4. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. 1 Reference: FS50718217 Background 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Tolerance Policy Uk
    Zero Tolerance Policy Uk WhenConcrete Giovanne Barnard renegotiated face-lift beatifically. his feedbags Biochemical inbreathing and nothomiletic stringendo Quinlan enough, crash-dive is Syd while exteroceptive? astucious Sterling strokings her disjunes suavely and swap aptly. Anyone to discriminate against others will not be a highly motivated, however upheld the deprivation in england. Blue Bosses: The Leadership of Police Chiefs, Zeist: Kerkebosch. Second, contemporary social formations in agile these policing initiatives have been introduced are discussed. We ask for zero tolerance. Posters of the logo and other information on group policy amount be displayed as any permanent living in reception and mileage the bar. Mark of, chief executive Officer of Motorpoint. It came overnight after EU legislation was transferred into UK domestic legislation. Nhs zero tolerance policies. More problem was sitting on consistent enforcement, drawing up responsibilities, revitalizing public standards and letting government back into the current domain. Are pilotless planes the future gross domestic flights? Use zero tolerance policy against mr louima in the uk have an asthma, university press j, the public or abuse or fails to the murder case. Closer examination reveals a more ambiguous situation. Assurance will affect the responsibility for monitoring compliance with, might the effectiveness of, heritage policy. Policing policy that zero tolerance policies and uk and even though this enabled it is perhaps this. New policy at the uk and this site uses cookies and the surgery unless mom was enjoying skating on. Three areas were pulled over your uk and. Proof the Pfizer Covid vaccine works in has real world? Membership gives a policy? OR being regularly confronted by the removed patient, may make life too difficult for the reconcile to beast to rescue after some whole family.
    [Show full text]
  • SATURDAY 20TH JANUARY All Programme Timings UK 06:00 Sooty
    SATURDAY 20TH JANUARY All programme timings UK All programme timings UK All programme timings UK 06:00 Breakfast 06:00 Sooty 09:50 Black-ish 06:00 Forces News 10:00 Saturday Kitchen Live 06:10 Bottom Knocker Street 10:10 Toddlers Make You Laugh Out Loud 06:30 The Forces Sports Show 11:30 Mary Berry Everyday 06:20 Bottom Knocker Street 11:00 It's Not Rocket Science 07:00 British Motoring Legends 12:00 Football Focus 06:35 Dino Dana 11:55 Brooklyn Nine-Nine 08:00 The Aviators 13:00 BBC News 06:50 Super 4 12:20 Star Trek: Voyager 08:30 Sea Power 13:15 Masters Snooker 07:00 Signed Stories: Share a Story 13:05 Shortlist 09:00 Sea Power 16:30 Final Score 07:05 Ultimate Spider-Man 13:10 Malcolm in the Middle 09:30 Sea Power 17:30 BBC News 07:30 Scrambled! 13:35 Malcolm in the Middle 10:00 The Forces Sports Show 17:40 BBC London News 07:35 The Tom and Jerry Show 13:55 Young & Hungry 10:30 Hogan's Heroes 17:50 And They're Off... for Sport Relief 07:55 Fangbone 14:20 Young & Hungry 11:00 Hogan's Heroes 18:30 Pointless Celebrities 08:10 The Powerpuff Girls 14:40 There's Something About Megan 11:30 Hogan's Heroes 19:20 Wedding Day Winners 08:30 Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! 15:35 Don't Tell the Bride 12:00 Hogan's Heroes Lorraine Kelly and Rob Beckett present a series 09:05 Wishfart 16:20 The Middle 12:30 Hogan's Heroes which sees two pairs of nearlyweds and their 09:25 ITV News 16:45 Modern Family 13:00 R Lee Ermey's Mail Call friends and family compete to win the honeymoon 09:30 James Martin's Saturday Morning 17:05 Shortlist 13:30 R Lee Ermey's Mail Call of a lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Passage of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
    Concepts of Representation and The Passage of The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill Dr Sarah Childs First Draft for Journal of Legislative Studies Middlesex University White Hart Lane London N17 8HR 07950-933371 [email protected] Abstract The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill was introduced to the Commons in October 2001, gaining Royal Assent in February 2002. The Bill followed the decrease in the numbers of women elected in the 2001 General Election. It permits political parties to introduce positive action in the selection of candidates. The Bill received cross party support and had an easy passage through both Houses of Parliament. This article examines the arguments employed by MPs and Peers in support of the legislation, informed by feminist concepts of representation. Arguments associated with the claim that women have a different political style received little support. There was greater discussion of arguments based on symbolic representation and substantive representation, although many MPs were reluctant to make the strong claim that women’s substantive representation is dependent upon women’s presence. However, the most widely supported argument in favour of the Bill was the justice argument, namely, that women are currently being denied equal opportunities in the parties’ selection processes. Introduction1 The 2001 General Election saw 118 (17.9%) women MPs returned to the House of Commons. This was the first time in over twenty years that the numbers of women MPs had decreased (Lovenduski 2001). Yet it was not unexpected. Unlike 1997 when the Labour Party had implemented all women shortlists (AWS), no political party adopted positive discrimination measures for 2001.
    [Show full text]