The impact of Brexit on UK policy on Northern Ireland

Posted on by

Conor Kelly and Etain Tannam argue that Brexit reversed much of the progress of past decades in Northern Ireland by signifying a return by the UK government to a unilateral approach that prioritised traditional sovereignty in both its relations with the Irish government and with devolved governments. They conclude that Brexit has deeply destabilised the political settlement in Northern Ireland.

In the first 5 months of 2023, Northern Ireland was rarely far from our front pages as the Windsor Framework was negotiated between the UK government and European Commission in February, and the world’s media descended on Belfast for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement’s 25th-anniversary celebrations in April. Yet, the Stormont institutions remain suspended, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has thus far refused to accept the Windsor Framework as the basis for returning to power-sharing.

To understand Brexit’s impact on the government’s policy, one must examine if joint UK-Irish EU membership between 1973 and 2016 impacted UK policy to Northern Ireland. We argue that while the Europeanisation of UK government policy towards Northern Ireland can be overstated, it had an indirect impact on the peace process by influencing the strategy of its key architect, former Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader John Hume. In particular the EU’s model of  institutionalised cooperation and consensual policy-making has echoes in the 1998 Agreement. Thus, the process of de-Europeanisation since 2016 has had a severely negative effect on political stability within Northern Ireland and UK-Irish relations.

Continue reading →

Boris Johnson has brought the honours system into disrepute; Rishi Sunak should have blocked him

Posted on by

The last 10 days have seen the publication of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list swiftly followed by his resignation as an MP and the damning Privileges Committee report over his misleading parliament, then new video footage of some nominees attending a lockdown-busting party. Meg Russell suggests that Rishi Sunak should have blocked Johnson’s honours list, and that by not doing so he risks being complicit in dragging the system into disrepute.

It has been an extraordinary 10 days in UK politics. On Friday 9 June, Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list was finally published, following months of speculation. Later that day, Johnson announced his intention to quit the Commons, having received a draft of the Privileges Committee’s excoriating report into allegations of his repeatedly misleading parliament over ‘partygate’. His resignation statement included a lengthy, highly critical, and notably misleading riposte to the committee. Two Johnson allies, Nadine Dorries and Nigel Adams, who had hoped to be ennobled on his list, also announced their resignations – leaving Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to face three difficult byelections (although Dorries has yet to formally follow through on her commitment). Six days later, following consequential updates, the Privileges Committee published its findings, which condemned Johnson not only for his original behaviour, but also for his publicly contemptuous treatment of the committee. On Friday 16 June a further (and unconnected) honours list marking the King’s official birthday was published. Yesterday, on the eve of the Commons debating the Privileges Committee report, a video emerged of Conservative staffers enjoying a 2020 Christmas party which blatantly broke lockdown rules. At least two of those in attendance were on Johnson’s honours list.

This leaves a series of questions, including several of a constitutional kind. Although at the heart of these events lie actions which would normally appear trivial – a few friends and colleagues enjoying a drink – in the context of the lockdown rules imposed by Johnson’s government even those actions are very serious, particularly to people who observed the rules and sacrificed times with loved ones, many of whom died during the pandemic. Constitutionally, Johnson’s serial misleading of parliament, the resultant Privileges Committee report into his behaviour, and his subsequent disrespectful response to it, are unprecedented for a Prime Minister. That this is tangled up not only with the functioning of his premiership, but also with the honours system, risks bringing various parts of our political system into serious disrepute.

Continue reading →

Do the public really care about lying to parliament? Yes, they do

Posted on by

MPs must weigh up this weekend how to approach the debate – and possible vote – on the Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson. Snap polls show the public mood to favour strong action. Alan Renwick draws on Constitution Unit research showing that this desire for honesty in politics is deep and enduring. People want a robust standards system, in which lying to parliament is punished.

Snap polling conducted in the wake of this week’s Commons Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson indicates that most people think the former Prime Minister did mislead parliament; they are far more likely to think that he was given a fair hearing than not and to believe that his punishment was too lenient rather than either too harsh or about right.

Such rapid polling always raises the question: are these views just a knee-jerk reaction, reflecting no deeper public sentiment? The answer is a simple ‘no’.

We at the Constitution Unit have carried out detailed investigations over the past two years into public attitudes towards the state of our democratic system. We conducted large-scale surveys in the summer of 2021 and again last summer. And we held a Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK over the final months of 2021. The first survey took place before partygate, while the second was in the field during Johnson’s final days in office, after he announced his resignation. The Citizens’ Assembly – which shows what a representative sample of the UK population thought about our democratic institutions after learning about the issues and discussing them over six weekends – reached its conclusions as the first partygate allegations were breaking, but before they peaked in early 2022. These sources thus provide a medium-term view on patterns of public thinking over the last two years, rather than being driven by this week’s events.

All the evidence shows that most people in the UK care a great deal about whether their elected representatives are honest. They think those who are not honest should be punished. They do not think it should be left to voters to use the one ballot they get to cast every four or five years to serve up this punishment. They want parliament to act against wrong-doing. If parliament fails to uphold the rules, they think matters may need to be taken out of MPs’ hands.

Continue reading →

Combatting backsliding: what works?

Posted on by

The Constitution Unit held an event in May, at which three expert panellists discussed the rise of democratic backsliding internationally and considered key domestic and international interventions which might help to combat this trend. In the first of a two-part series, Sophie Andrews-McCarroll summarises the discussion from the main portion of the event. A separate blog, covering the Q&A section of the event, will be published on 16 June.

Discussions about the health of democracy internationally are occurring more and more frequently, amid worrying reports of a global decline in democratic standards. These concerns relate to the problem of increasingly prolific democratic backsliding – a process by which a legitimately elected leader challenges democratic norms and institutions, and deliberately begins to dismantle checks and balances on the executive.

To discuss these challenges, and to examine possible solutions, the Constitution Unit convened a panel discussion on combatting democratic backsliding, held on 23 May 2023. This event was chaired by Meg Russell, who was joined by experts Dr Seema Shah (Head of the Democracy Assessment Unit at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance); Ken Godfrey (Executive Director of the European Partnership for Democracy); and Professor Kim Lane Scheppele, (Laurance S Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs, Princeton University).

The below is a summary of the speakers’ opening remarks. There will subsequently be another blog detailing the subsequent panel discussion and audience questions.

Seema Shah

Dr Shah opened the session by addressing the concept of democratic backsliding. A number of problems have arisen in defining the term. ‘Backsliding’ has been used, and is still widely used by practitioners today, to discuss a variety of general declines in democratic health – but these definitions can present challenges for those collecting data to measure the concept. International IDEA has defined backsliding as significant declines over a five-year period in checks on government; in credible elections; and in civil liberties. Academics and practitioners do not necessarily use these same categories. What has been most useful is the consensus that backsliding commonly refers to the purposeful dismantling of democratic building blocks from within by democratically elected leaders.

Continue reading →