Search results

A higher loyalty

This book argues that the current problems over Britain’s membership of the European Union are largely as a result of the absence of quality debates during the 1959–84 period. The situation today is also attributed to members of the political elite subordinating the question of Britain’s future in Europe to short-term, pragmatic, party management or career considerations. A particular and original interpretation of Britain and Europe is advanced, aided by recently discovered evidence. This includes the methods used by the Conservative government to ensure it won the vote following the 1971 parliamentary debate on Britain’s proposed entry into the EEC. It also delves into the motives of the sixty-nine rebel Labour MPs that voted against their own party on EEC membership, and how the British public were largely misled by political leaders in respect of the true aims of the European project. This is a study of a seminal period in Britain’s relationship with Europe. Starting from the British government’s early attempts at EEC membership, and concluding with the year both major political parties accepted Britain’s place in Europe, this book examines decision-making in Britain. As such, it contributes to a greater understanding of British politics. It answers a number of key questions and casts light on the current toxic dilemma on the issue of Europe.

Sharon Weinblum

2012 and 2015 decisions to return African migrants to their country of origin or to third countries. Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on the legitimisation of these technologies of blocking and exclusion in the Israeli political discourse. More specifically, through a discourse analysis of political actors’ public speeches and parliamentary debates, I seek to answer the following questions

in Security/ Mobility
Simon Healy

American jurist would call ‘original intent’ – that ‘neither opinions nor precedents, which are but servants to inform, are fit to contradict the fundamental laws’.3 In the context of a debate about personal liberty, Phelips was suggesting that precedents were intended to serve the political aims of those who cited them, not to restrict their options. Had precedents been cast-iron authorities, then they might in fact have been invoked more sparingly in early Stuart parliamentary debate: fifty-six precedents and counting, the debate over executive detention in 1628 was no

in Writing the history of parliament in Tudor and early Stuart England
Reproducing liberal democracy
Lee Jarvis and Tim Legrand

.’ Proscription’s symbolic dimension, then, is here taken for granted by a supporter and critic of this power, on opposing sides of the British political divide. Second, as developed below, efforts to extend the UK’s list of proscribed groups take place within discrete, self-contained debates which are heavily orchestrated and marked by many of the features associated with any number of more familiar rituals. These include, amongst other things: a core script which is often repeated verbatim, with minor alterations, across parliamentary debates; a set of established and

in Banning them, securing us?
Abstract only
Peter Hobbins

investigative practice between laity and often self-appointed cognoscenti. Participation in such active experimentation suggests a need to rework histories which paint colonials as profuse collectors of information, but omit their role in generating and circulating ‘useful knowledge’. Concurrently, the mundanity of colonial vivisection provides a striking contrast with the protracted public and parliamentary

in Venomous encounters
Paul Johnson

debates, I  examine how parliamentarians discursively represent their beliefs about the ECtHR and how these beliefs come to achieve degrees of collective acceptance among MPs and Lords. My primary aim is not to determine whether expressions of belief about the ECtHR are ‘true’ –​although an assessment of the veracity of claims inevitably informs my analysis  –​but to examine which beliefs are most often expressed and accepted by parliamentarians. Offering an analysis of parliamentary debates is based on the premise that discourse in Parliament has an influence on

in Law in popular belief
Gordon T. Stewart

Calcutta could be checked. Officials at the Board of Trade, commenting on various desiderata in the trade negotiations with India in 1937, minuted that ‘Dundee will be faced with the complete extinction of its industry unless … something can be done to regulate the expansion, hitherto unchecked, of Indian competition.’ 6 Two Parliamentary debates were held in 1936 and 1938 as part of the political campaign

in Jute and empire
Timothy Heppell and Thomas McMeeking

(Heppell, 2012: 34; Jones, 1996: 41–64; 139–47). Having identified the significance of Gaitskell to the political thought of the Labour Party this chapter therefore will be broken into four sections. First, it will assess how he used parliamentary debate; second, it will consider his conference oratory; third, it will examine his public oratory in terms of wider media appearances and electioneering; and finally, it will evaluate his rhetorical methods and the extent to which he drew upon logos (the appeal to reason and logic), pathos (the appeal to emotion) and ethos (an

in Labour orators from Bevan to Miliband
Robin T. Pettitt

conclusion to Smith’s oratory is missing. Hence, this chapter will focus on what was at the core of Smith’s oratory and deal less with how it evolved, since that process of evolution was cut short. After having considered Smith’s background and some general trends in his oratory, the rest of the chapter will be based around three case studies associated with Parliament, the party conference and the public arenas. First there will be two of his contributions to parliamentary debate, namely those which twice won him the title of Parliamentarian of the Year; second there will

in Labour orators from Bevan to Miliband
Sources of parliamentary support and opposition
Lee Jarvis and Tim Legrand

This chapter begins our analysis of parliamentary debate around proscription by asking how parliamentarians – as contributors to these debates – make sense of this power. We begin by exploring the primary ways in which parliamentarians introduce or situate this power vis-à-vis the range of alternative counter-terrorism mechanisms available to government, and in relation to the role and responsibilities of government more broadly. As demonstrated below, especial emphasis is placed, in these discussions, on the seriousness and significance of proscription as a

in Banning them, securing us?