DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitution for the United Kingdom Consists of 129 Articles and 6 Schedules, Accompanied by a Commentary Which Explains the Derivation and Purpose of Each Provision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitution for the United Kingdom Consists of 129 Articles and 6 Schedules, Accompanied by a Commentary Which Explains the Derivation and Purpose of Each Provision I7R INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH 30/32 Southampton Street, London WC2E 7RA Tel: 071-379 9400 Fax:071-497 0373 The Institute for Public Policy Research is an independent charity whose purpose is to contribute to public understanding of social, economic and political questions through research, discussion and publication. It was established in 1988 by leading figures in the academic, business and trade union community to provide an alternative to the free market think-tanks. IPPR’s agenda reflects the challenges facing Britain: changes in the European continent and the European Community; the threats posed by uncontrolled industrial growth to the world’s ecological balance; the impact of new technologies and scientific developments; changing social and economic relationships between women and men; the need to decentralise power to the regions and nations of Britain. Besides its programme of publication, IPPR also provides a forum for political and trade union leaders, academic experts and those from business, finance, government and the media, bringing people together from throughout Britain and the European Community to discuss issues of common concern. Trustees Baroness Blackstone (Chairman) Philip Hughes Professor Patrick Bateson FRS Jeremy Isaacs Tony Christopher (Treasurer) Kate Mortimer Lord Donoughue Herman Ouseley Dr John Eatwell (Secretary) Professor Bhikhu Parekh John Edmonds Emma Rothschild Sir Denis Forman Tom Sawyer Lord Hollick 2492/Design and Print by Tony Flower/Redesign ISBN 1 87452 42 6 © IPPR 1991 The Constitution of the United Kingdom CONTENTS Page Preface 1-2 INTRODUCTION 3-30 THE CONSTITUTION pp 1-136 COMMENTARY pp 1-121 1 PREFACE This Constitution has been drafted in the conviction that an example would advance the public argument more effectively than further general discussion of the problems which it raises and attempts to resolve. The project could not have been undertaken without the generous support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, whose grant enabled us to hold countless meetings of the various drafting groups, to commission specific pieces of work and to employ a coordinator to keep the show on the road. We are grateful to the Trustees for their support and to the Assistant Secretary Heather Swailes for the helpful way in which she has administered the grant. Nor would the project have been possible without the willingness of many people to give freely of their time and knowledge, either as members of a working party, as contributors on particular subjects, or as advisors, consultants and critics: Advisory Group Professors Anthony Bradley, Terence Daintith, Jeffrey Jowell, Patrick McAuslan and Keith Patchett, and Anthony Lester QC. Working Parties Dr Robert Blackburn, Professor Gavin Drewry, Professor Ronald Dworkin, Ann Dummett, Patricia Hewitt, Sir William Goodhart QC, Nicola Lacey, John McEldowney, Dr Jeremy Mitchell, Nuala Mole, Dawn Oliver and Sarah Spencer. Contributors to draft Brice Dickson, Laurens Fransman, Josh Hillman, Beverley Lang, Dr Gerry Rubin and Professor Ian Willock Advice and Consultation Geoffrey Bindman, Professor Kevin Boyle, Madeleine Colvin, Alis­ tair Darling MP, Professor Keith Ewing, Tess Gill, Peter Gill, Professor Malcolm Grant, Professor John Kay, Professor Norman Lewis, Lau­ rence Lustgarten, Professor David Marquand, Bob McCreadie, Ron Medlow, Richard Norton Taylor, Professor Claire Palley, William Plowden, Clive Ponting, Jim Ross, Anthony Scrivener QC, Stephen Smith, Ian Snaith, Dr Hugo Storey, Tony Travers and Professor Sir David Williams. 2 A draft by many hands is apt to look like patchwork. That this final version has some consistency of style and substance is due to the heroic efforts of Keith Patchett who at a late stage took the draft in hand and imposed order upon it. We are greatly indebted to him. Likewise to Sarah Spencer whose skill, patience, good humour and persistence has bought the project to completion. Nobody involved agrees with everything in this Constitution and that includes myself. The responsibility for the final result is however my own and I am doubly grateful to all who have contributed for their forbearance throughout this exercise in guided democracy. James Cornford July 1991 3 INTRODUCTION I This draft Constitution for the United Kingdom consists of 129 Articles and 6 schedules, accompanied by a commentary which explains the derivation and purpose of each provision. The main features of the Constitution are as follows: (1) The Constitution is the sole source of authority for all public action, executive, legislative or judicial. Henceforth authority must be sought not in common law principles such as parliamen­ tary sovereignty or prerogative power, nor in constitutional con­ ventions, such as ministerial responsibility, but in the written provisions of this Constitution. (Article 1) (2) The Constitution is placed in the context of the United King­ dom’s international and European commitments. (Article 1). Specific commitment to European Community Law is provided under Article 50 and to international obligations under Article 51. (3) The Constitution incorporates a Bill of Rights based on the Eu­ ropean Convention on Human Rights and on the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to both of which the United Kingdom is signatory, and provides the means for its enforcement (Articles 2 to 26). It also includes a declaratory statement of Social and Economic Rights (Article 27) and public rights of access to official information and controls on the use of personal information by public authorities. (Articles 28 and 29). (4) British nationality is defined, together with the rules governing the acquisition and loss of British nationality, allegiance and dual nationality, and the civic rights of non-nationals (Articles 30 to 33). (5) The position of the Queen as Head of State is confirmed but the residual prerogative powers of the Monarchy (eg over the ap­ pointment of the Prime Minister) are removed and the Monarchy becomes a wholly dignified part of the Constitution (Articles 34 to 39). 4 INTRODUCTION (6) The prerogative powers exercised by the Executive are defined in the Constitution and subjected to Parliamentary control: eg the making of treaties (Article 51), the declaration of war (Article 122), deployment of the Armed Forces (Article 123), national security (Article 126) and declarations of emergency (Article 128).Substantial areas of patronage are removed from the Ex­ ecutive by transferring powers of appointment from Ministers to the Public Services Commission (Article 115) and a Judicial Ap­ pointments Commission for the United Kingdom and Judicial Services Commissions for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Articles 102 and 103). (7) The Prime Minister is elected by the House of Commons and is subject to a personal vote of no confidence which does not involve the dissolution of the House. The Prime Minister ap­ points a deputy, Ministers and the Cabinet. Ministers are required to give a statement of their responsibilities to Parliament on taking office and are bound by a Code of Conduct (Articles 40 to 46) (8) The House of Commons is elected for a fixed term of four years, with the possibility of dissolution but with no extension of the term of Parliament (Article 60). (9) The House of Lords is replaced by an elected Second Chamber (Article 57), also elected for a four year term, but at a two year interval from the election for the House of Commons, and not subject to dissolution (Article 60 and Schedule 3). (10) Both Houses have a smaller membership than at present and both are to be elected by forms of Proportional Representation: the House of Commons by a variant of the Additional Member System and the Second Chamber by the Single Transferable Vote (Articles 83 to 86 and Schedule 3). (11) The House of Commons retains its present supremacy in relation to financial and general legislation, but the Second Chamber has equal powers concerning amendments to the Constitution and to constitutional legislation, that is statutes which give effect to or have a direct bearing on provisions of the Constitution, eg election law or matters arising from the Bill of Rights (Articles INTRODUCTION 5 65 to 70). (12) Legislative power is shared between Parliament and elected Assemblies for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and twelve English regions. Parliament retains exclusive rights over those matters normally retained for the central government in federal Constitutions, while the Assemblies’ powers are based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the present execu­ tive responsibilities of the Scottish Office (Articles 52 to 54). Parliament retains concurrent powers to legislate on matters where legislation by an Assembly would be inadequate or would have adverse effects outside its boundaries (Article 55). (13) The Assemblies are to be financed by an entitlement to the proceeds of the personal income tax, distributed according to an entrenched formula based on population, with power to vary the standard rate of tax at the margin. The income tax would continue to be a United Kingdom tax set by Parliament and administered by the Inland Revenue. (Article 80 and Schedule 2) (14) The Constitution requires that each Assembly shall establish elected local authorities but leaves the details of their functions and organization to the Assemblies in order to recognise the different circumstances of the nations and regions and to encour­ age diversity. Local authorities are given
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C
    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (c. 51)i, ii An Act to make new provision with respect to public records and the Public Record Office, and for connected purposes. [23rd July 1958] General responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for public records. 1. - (1) The direction of the Public Record Office shall be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall be generally responsible for the execution of this Act and shall supervise the care and preservation of public records. (2) There shall be an Advisory Council on Public Records to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office. The Master of the Rolls shall be chairman of the said Council and the remaining members of the Council shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on such terms as he may specify. [(2A) The matters on which the Advisory Council on Public Records may advise the Lord Chancellor include matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.iii] (3) The Lord Chancellor shall in every year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the work of the Public Record Office, which shall include any report made to him by the Advisory Council on Public Records.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin When the Framers
    Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin* When the Framers drafted the United States Constitution in 1787, the only mention of religion was the remarkable text of Article VI, which states “no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That groundbreaking language marked a shift from prior practice in Europe and the states. At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, most states had religious qualifications for government officials, following the pattern in Britain, where the monarch was required to be a member of the Church of England. In Europe the guiding principle was cuius regio, eius religio: the religion of the people is determined by the religion of the ruler. Many of the Framers, especially James Madison, believed that the new Constitution protected liberty of conscience by creating a government of enumerated and separate powers that gave Congress no authority over religion. During the ratification process, however, constitutional critics demanded greater protection of individuals from the power of the government. In order to secure the Constitution’s ratification, the new Congress drafted a Bill of Rights that protected religious freedom in the following language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Upon ratification by the states in 1791, the language about religion became the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The two Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although Madison suggested that the standard protecting liberty of conscience should apply to state as well as federal governments, the language of the First Amendment—“Congress 1 shall”—applied only to the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank Restriction Act and the Regime Shift to Paper Money, 1797-1821
    European Historical Economics Society EHES WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY | NO. 100 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821 Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen JULY 2016 EHES Working Paper | No. 100 | July 2016 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821* Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen Abstract The Bank Restriction Act of 1797 suspended the convertibility of the Bank of England's notes into gold. The current historical consensus is that the suspension was a result of the state's need to finance the war, France’s remonetization, a loss of confidence in the English country banks, and a run on the Bank of England’s reserves following a landing of French troops in Wales. We argue that while these factors help us understand the timing of the Restriction period, they cannot explain its success. We deploy new long-term data which leads us to a complementary explanation: the policy succeeded thanks to the reputation of the Bank of England, achieved through a century of prudential collaboration between the Bank and the Treasury. JEL classification: N13, N23, N43 Keywords: Bank of England, financial revolution, fiat money, money supply, monetary policy commitment, reputation, and time-consistency, regime shift, financial sector growth * We are grateful to Mark Dincecco, Rui Esteves, Alex Green, Marjolein 't Hart, Phillip Hoffman, Alejandra Irigoin, Richard Kleer, Kevin O’Rourke, Jaime Reis, Rebecca Simson, Albrecht Ritschl, Joan R.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Zealand Gazeite 1065
    18 MAY THE NEW ZEALAND GAZEITE 1065 Pilot Officer W. N. Smith to be Flying Officer with effect Promotions from 19 March 1972. Secretarial Division Pilot Officer K. M. L. Smith to be Flying Officer with Flying Officer (temp. Flight Lieutenant) L. R. McC. effect from 19 March 1972. Wilson to be Flight Lieutenant with effect from 9 April 1972. Pilot Officer M. W. Sinclair to be Flying Officer with effect from 19 March 1972. Supply Division Pilot Officer B. J. Burt to be Flying Officer with effect from Flying Officer (temp. Flight Lieutenant) C. B. Raddock 19 March 1972. to be Flight Lieutenant with effect from 9 April 1972. Pilot Officer R. A. J. Murdoch to be Flying Officer with Flying Officer (temp. Flight Lieutenant) T. N. Queenin to effect from 19 March 1972. be Flight Lieutenant with effect from 9 April 1972. Pilot Officer F. H. Parker to be Flying Officer with effect Pilot Officer J. L. Burns to be Flying Officer with effect from 19 March 1972. from 14 April 1972. Pilot Officer R. L. Horrocks to be Flying Officer with effect from 19 March 1972. Special Duties Division Pilot Officer P. G. Buck to be Flying Officer with effect Pilot Officer E. R. McPherson to be Flying Officer with from 19 March 1972. effect from 14 April 1972. Acting Pilot Officer P. S. Faulkner, B.SC., to be Flying Transfers to Reserve Officer, with seniority from 24 September 1971 and effect from 24 March 1972. Special Duties Division Acting Pilot Officer W. J. Sommer, B.SC., to be Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant Robert Winston Horne is transferred to with seniority from 24 December 1971 and effect from 24 the Reserve of Air Force Officers until 5 February 1976, with March 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Law on the Financing of Political Activities of Serbia
    Strasbourg, 25 September 2014 CDL-REF(2014)035 Opinion No. 782 / 2014 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) LAW ON THE FINANCING OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF SERBIA as of 14 June 2011 (as translated by the OSCE) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-REF(2014)035 - 2 - LAW ON FINANCING POLITICAL ACTIVITIES I. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Subject of the Law Article 1 This Law shall regulate sources and manner of financing, records and control of financing of activities of political parties, coalitions and citizens’ group (hereinafter “political entities”). Meaning of Terms Article 2 Individual terms used in this Law shall mean: - “political activity” is regular work and election campaign of a political entity as submitter of registered electoral list and nominator of candidates for president of the Republic, members of parliament, deputies and councillors; - “political party” is an organization of citizens recorded in the Register of Political Parties with the competent authority, in accordance with law; - “coalition” is a form of association of political entities for joint participation in elections, which regulate their mutual relations by contract, attested in accordance with law governing attestation of signatures; - “citizens’ group” is a form of association of voters for joint participation in elections, which regulate their mutual relations by contract, attested in accordance with law governing attestation of signatures; - “election campaign”
    [Show full text]
  • H 955 Great Britain
    Great Britain H 955 BACKGROUND: The heading Great Britain is used in both descriptive and subject cataloging as the conventional form for the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This instruction sheet describes the usage of Great Britain, in contrast to England, as a subject heading. It also describes the usage of Great Britain, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as geographic subdivisions. 1. Great Britain vs. England as a subject heading. In general assign the subject heading Great Britain, with topical and/or form subdivisions, as appropriate, to works about the United Kingdom as a whole. Assign England, with appropriate subdivision(s), to works limited to that country. Exception: Do not use the subdivisions BHistory or BPolitics and government under England. For a work on the history, politics, or government of England, assign the heading Great Britain, subdivided as required for the work. References in the subject authority file reflect this practice. Use the subdivision BForeign relations under England only in the restricted sense described in the scope note under EnglandBForeign relations in the subject authority file. 2. Geographic subdivision. a. Great Britain. Assign Great Britain directly after topics for works that discuss the topic in relation to Great Britain as a whole. Example: Title: History of the British theatre. 650 #0 $a Theater $z Great Britain $x History. b. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Assign England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales directly after topics for works that limit their discussion to the topic in relation to one of the four constituent countries of Great Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revolutions of 1989 and Their Legacies
    1 The Revolutions of 1989 and Their Legacies Vladimir Tismaneanu The revolutions of 1989 were, no matter how one judges their nature, a true world-historical event, in the Hegelian sense: they established a historical cleavage (only to some extent conventional) between the world before and after 89. During that year, what appeared to be an immutable, ostensibly indestructible system collapsed with breath-taking alacrity. And this happened not because of external blows (although external pressure did matter), as in the case of Nazi Germany, but as a consequence of the development of insuperable inner tensions. The Leninist systems were terminally sick, and the disease affected first and foremost their capacity for self-regeneration. After decades of toying with the ideas of intrasystemic reforms (“institutional amphibiousness”, as it were, to use X. L. Ding’s concept, as developed by Archie Brown in his writings on Gorbachev and Gorbachevism), it had become clear that communism did not have the resources for readjustment and that the solution lay not within but outside, and even against, the existing order.1 The importance of these revolutions cannot therefore be overestimated: they represent the triumph of civic dignity and political morality over ideological monism, bureaucratic cynicism and police dictatorship.2 Rooted in an individualistic concept of freedom, programmatically skeptical of all ideological blueprints for social engineering, these revolutions were, at least in their first stage, liberal and non-utopian.3 The fact that 1 See Archie Brown, Seven Years that Changed the World: Perestroika in Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 157-189. In this paper I elaborate upon and revisit the main ideas I put them forward in my introduction to Vladimir Tismaneanu, ed., The Revolutions of 1989 (London and New York: Routledge, 1999) as well as in my book Reinventing Politics: Eastern Europe from Stalin to Havel (New York: Free Press, 1992; revised and expanded paperback, with new afterword, Free Press, 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1991 No. 724 (L.5) COUNTY COURTS SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 Made - - - - 19th March 1991 Coming into force - - 1st July 1991 The Lord Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sections 1 and 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990(1), having consulted as required by section 1(9) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order a draft of which has, in accordance with section 120(4) of that Act, been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament:— Title and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 and shall come into force on 1st July 1991. Jurisdiction 2.—(1) A county court shall have jurisdiction under— (a) sections 30, 146 and 147 of the Law of Property Act 1925(2), (b) section 58C of the Trade Marks Act 1938(3), (c) section 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950(4), (d) section 63(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954(5), (e) section 28(3) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969(6), (1) 1990 c. 41. (2) 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c.20; relevant amendments were made by the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28), section 148(1) andPart II of Schedule 2. (3) 1 & 2 Geo. 6 c.22; section 58C was inserted by section 300 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Supermajority Voting Requirements for Tax Increases: Evidence from the States
    Journal of Public Economics 76 (2000) 41±67 www.elsevier.nl/locate/econbase Supermajority voting requirements for tax increases: evidence from the states Brian G. Knight* Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA Received 1 April 1998; received in revised form 1 September 1998; accepted 1 September 1999 Abstract This paper measures the effect of state-level supermajority requirements for tax increases on tax rates. Unobserved attitudes towards taxation tend to in¯uence both the adoption of supermajority requirements and tax policy. Consequently, one cannot distinguish between the effect of these requirements and their correlation with these unobserved attitudes. A model is presented in which legislatures controlled by a pro-tax party adopt a supermajority requirement to reduce the majority party agenda control. The propensity of pro-tax states to adopt supermajority requirements results in an underestimate of the true effect of these requirements on taxes. To correct this identi®cation problem, the paper ®rst uses ®xed effects to control for unobserved attitudes and then employs instruments that measure the dif®culty of amending state constitutions. The paper concludes that supermajority require- ments have signi®cantly reduced taxes. 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. Keywords: Budget institutions; State and local public ®nance; Majority voting JEL classi®cation: H72; D72 1. Introduction In each of the years between 1996 and 1999, the US Congress voted on a proposed constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds supermajority legisla- *Tel.: 11-608-262-5353. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.G. Knight) 0047-2727/00/$ ± see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Irredentism: the Case of Hungary and Its Transborder Minorities in Romania and Slovakia
    Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia by Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fuzesi A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Government London School of Economics and Political Science University of London 2006 1 UMI Number: U615886 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615886 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Signature Date ....... 2 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Abstract of Thesis Author (full names) ..Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fiizesi...................................................................... Title of thesis ..Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia............................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................... Degree..PhD in Government............... This thesis seeks to explain irredentism by identifying the set of variables that determine its occurrence. To do so it provides the necessary definition and comparative analytical framework, both lacking so far, and thus establishes irredentism as a field of study in its own right. The thesis develops a multi-variate explanatory model that is generalisable yet succinct.
    [Show full text]