The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint ’Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of ’EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972

The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint 'Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of 'EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972

This book investigates how political actors - and more particularly members of parliaments - have reacted to Brexit to assess its long-term consequences. Brexit has not only been a major disruption affecting the functioning and internal balance of the European Union (EU), but to a very large extent, it also represents a challenge to the idea of an ‘ever closer union’ and to the democratic principles on which the EU has been built. Relying on empirical explorations of regional and national parliaments across the continent as well as the European Parliament, the chapters in this volume address three intertwined sets of questions regarding the evolution of democratic politics in Europe in the wake of Brexit. Firstly, how do citizens’ representatives assess the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU and its consequences? Secondly, what is the impact of Brexit as regards the politicisation of the debate on Europe? Has Brexit exacerbated existing political divisions or generated new cleavages? Thirdly, and crucially, have parliaments attempted to and succeeded in influencing Brexit negotiations and their outcome? What positions did parliamentarians promote in these negotiations? What model for the future of the EU did they defend? The book is key reading for all students and researchers interested in Politics and International Relations, Elections, European Studies, and European Union Politics. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Contemporary European Studies.

This collection of essays by leading academics, lawyers, parliamentarians and parliamentary officials provides a critical assessment of the UK Parliament's two main constitutional roles-as a legislature and as the preeminent institution for calling government to account. Both functions are undergoing change and facing new challenges. Part 1 (Legislation) includes chapters on Parliament's emerging responsibilities for pre-legislative scrutiny of government Bills and for evaluating proposed legislation against explicit constitutional standards. The impact on legislation of the European Union and the growing influence of the House of Lords are also examined. Part 2 (Accountability) investigates how Parliament operates to scrutinise areas of executive action previously often shielded from effective parliamentary oversight, including national security, war-making powers and administrative justice. There are also chapters on parliamentary reform, including analysis of the House of Commons 'Wright reforms', parliamentary sovereignty, privilege and the European Convention on Human Rights, Euroscepticism, and parliamentary sovereignty and the regulation of lobbyists. The book will be of interest to anyone who is curious about the work of Parliament and is aimed at legal academics, practitioners and political scientists.