The System of Government

The System of Government

Britain is a democracy, yet its people are not, as one might expect in a democracy, constitutionally in control of the state. The constitutional situation is an apparently contradictory one. As a result of an historical process, the people of Britain are subjects of the Crown, accepting the Queen as the head of the state. Yet even the Queen is not sovereign in any substantial sense since she receives her authority from Parliament, and is subject to its direction in almost all matters. In short, she 'reigns' but does not rule. Technically, if confusingly, British sovereignty collectively resides in the three elements of Parliament: the Crown, and Parliament's two chambers: the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

This curious situation came about as a result of a long struggle for power between the Crown and Parliament during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1689 Parliament won that struggle, because it controlled most of the national wealth. It agreed to allow the Crown to continue to function within certain limits, and subject to Parliament's control. No constitution was written down either then or since, and the relationship between Crown, government, Parliament and people - and their respective constitutional powers - has been one of gradual development in three vital respects: parliamentary 'sovereignty'; an independent judiciary; and consolidation of the rule of law. Various elements of what is usually considered 'the constitution' appear in different laws and conventions, but they are not specified as such. The state - itself sometimes called the Crown -operates on precedent, custom and conventions, and on unwritten rules and assumptions. Operating on precedent, custom and common sense is a very British arrangement, and the British have traditionally felt uncomfortable with a constitution based either on logic or theory.

The Crown

The reigning monarch is not only the head of state but also a symbol of the unity of the nation. The monarchy is Britain's oldest secular institution, its continuity for over 1,000 years broken only once by a republic that lasted a mere 11 years (1649-60). The monarchy is hereditary, the succession passing automatically to the oldest male child, or in the absence of males, to the oldest female offspring of the monarch. By Act (or law) of Parliament, the monarch must be a Protestant. Succession is automatic on the death of the monarch, confirmed later by a formal coronation ceremony. The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, for example, took place over a year after she became queen.

In law the monarch is head of the executive and of the judiciary, head of the Church of England, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. (However, since 1689, the monarch's sovereign powers have been formally limited by the idea that national sovereignty resides in 'the Crown in Parliament' -the idea that the Crown is only sovereign by the will of Parliament.

The remaining powers of the monarch are basically to summon, suspend until the next session and dissolve Parliament; to give royal assent to legislation passed by Parliament; to appoint government ministers, judges, officers of the armed forces, governors, diplomats, and bishops of the Church; to confer honours such as peerages and knighthoods; to remit sentences passed on convicted criminals; and finally to declare war on or make peace with an enemy power. In practice, of course, with the exception of a few honours she is free to decide herself, the monarch discharges all these functions on the direction of the government. In most matters of state, the refusal of the Queen to exercise her power according to the direction of her Prime Minister would risk a serious constitutional crisis.

Nevertheless, the function of the monarch is politically important. For as someone who reigns but does not rule, the sovereign separates the 'magic' of sovereignty, publicly visible in many ceremonies, from the power of the executive head of state. This contrasts with executive presidential systems of government. Away from the public gaze, the monarch plays a more practical role. The Queen is visited regularly by her Prime Minister to receive an account of Cabinet decisions and to be consulted on matters of national life. Since 1952 the Queen has given weekly audience, as it is called, to 11 Prime Ministers, some of whom have highly valued these meetings.

Exercise 1: Answer the following questions:

1. Why does the queen reign but not rule?

2. How did the Parliament get its power?

3. What do you know about the British constitution? What does the expression “to operate on precedent, custom and conventions” mean?

4. When was the continuity of the British monarchy broken? Why? Find more information on this period.

5. What is the order of succession? Explain the meaning of the expression “the Crown in Parliament”.

6. Find information about Queen Elizabeth II.

7. What are the functions of today`s monarch?

8. Why is the function of the monarch politically important?

Exercise 2: Translate in writing and learn the words and expressions written in bold.

Exercise 3: Give written translation of the underlined passage.

Debate - Abolish the British Monarchy - Yes or No?

The British people have never had the chance to vote for or against a monarchy. Unlike countries which have a written constitution, much of our system of government has been inherited from an undemocratic past. Although Parliament might vote to abolish the monarchy, under the Treason Felony Act 1848 it is treason if "any person whatsoever, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honor or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom." Many monarchists argue that advocating republican democracy is therefore seditious and illegal.

The monarchy in Britain has existed in its current form since the 10th century (excluding the period 1649-60). Although the monarch plays only a ceremonial role, having lost all political power, the monarch is still the head of state. Given the cost, out-dated traditions and the fact that 79% of people believe that it has lost touch with society, should the monarch remain as the figurehead of this country.

For reasons of balance, I’ll briefly summarize the main arguments put forward by those in favor of keeping the monarchy. It serves no function, so it is harmless, it frees the prime minister from pointless ceremonial affairs, leaving him free to govern the country, it acts as a source of national pride and as a source of national loyalty. The biggest supporting factor is of course the fact that no one can agree on an alternative. As in the case of Australia, the majority wanted to see the Queen removed as head of state, but no one could agree on what to replace her with. Since it serves no purpose, it can do no harm, and so time should be devoted to more urgent considerations.

However, I argue that it does a lot of harm, and that the issue needs to be addressed urgently if Britain is to be seen as a modern and influential state. There are a number of options for change. A considerable scaling down of the monarchy could begin to remove the parasitical ‘hangers on’ could begin. A complete modernization to remove political ceremonies such as the state opening of parliament and the audiences with the monarch could begin, with all political functions being transferred to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Or, we could completely abolish the monarchy, reposes the palaces, lands and funds that belong to the nation, and elect a head of state to fulfill the ceremonial (but not, in my opinion, political) position that the monarch currently inhabits. I believe that the last proposal is the only acceptable scenario.

Firstly, a hereditary monarch representing the feudal society of medieval England is intolerable in a modern democratic state. It represents the pinnacle of the anachronistic class system in Britain, promoting social division, snobbery, and separating them form ordinary hard working people. Britain will never become a meritocracy, where people are given opportunities according to their ability, not according to their birth, if the monarchy remains. As long as the monarchy survives, so will the class system in Britain.

Secondly, it is unacceptable that the British tax payer should be paying £75,000,000 a year to support one of the richest families in Britain (wealth accumulated of course form the people during previous centuries). That would pay the University tuition fees of 75,000 of the poorest students, fund 25 new secondary schools, or pay for the running of an entire hospital. Last year, additional expenses for a £200,000 wardrobe and a £50,000 well, both for Buckingham Palace were made to the tax payer. It may generate income form tourism, but this would increase to unprecedented levels if we were to abolish the monarchy and open up all the palaces as museums, hotels or restaurants. When people are forced to sleep on the streets, we cannot justify spending £75,000,000 on a relic that serves no purpose.

Thirdly, the monarchy encourages the continuation and acceptance of outdates traditions and beliefs. Apart from the image we project abroad of an outdated nation living in the past, it is a relic of an age which no person living in Britain should be proud of. The British empire signifies all that is wrong with society. Whilst Britain as a nation prospered and the monarchy lived a sheltered life of luxury, those who created the wealth, the working classes, were forced to live in unimaginable suffering. Abroad, Britain sold human beings into slavery, and treated inhabitants of her colonies as second-class citizens, causing the long term underdevelopment and tensions that we see today in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Is this really an institution we are expected to show loyalty to?

Fourthly, the monarchy no longer commands the respect or support of the British people. The appalling behavior individuals within this institution renders it unfit to sit at the head of this country. The Duke of Edinburgh is a disgrace to the nation and a hypocrite. Only 12% of the public believe that the monarchy should continue in its present form. Not even William Hague is that unpopular. Clearly, people have lost faith in the monarchy, and something needs to be done to correct this situation.

In conclusion, although the monarchy doesn’t physically have a role, it is its symbolic features and what it represents that men we have to abolish it. Unfortunately, certain individuals in Britain are stuck in a time warp of jingoism and isolationism. National boundaries have no relevance in the world, they only serve to prevent progress. There is enough food for everyone, but national boundaries mean that most of Africa staves. The monarchy and national pride is unproductive, and legitimizes (indirectly) racism. Our immediate future is as an integral part of the European Union. However, the monarchy is the last remaining relic to a past where Britain could stand alone, and the last remaining barrier to a future where we most definitely cannot. The monarchy, like slavery, sexual and class discrimination, and colonial exploitation is a throwback to our shameful past, and an impediment to our bright future.

Мейджор: "Монархия стоит над политикой"

Джон Мэйджор получает из рук королевы награду. Букингемский дворец, 1999 год. Джон Мэйджор, премьер-министр Великобритании с 1990 по 1997 годы (статья в газете "Дейли телеграф" от 17 мая 2002 года, с некоторыми сокращениями)

Я пишу эту статью с привилегированной позиции. В течение шести с половиной лет я присутствовал на еженедельной аудиенции у королевы. Часто она выходила за рамки предусмотренного на нее часа. Мы встречались наедине. Без записи разговоров. Запретных тем не было. Я мог делиться мыслями, идеями, надеждой - даже опасениями - в обстановке абсолютного уединения. Я разговаривал с человеком, который знакомился с государственными документами 50 лет - дольше любого чиновника правительства.

В течение 50 лет королева точно так же встречалась со всеми премьер-министрами, от Уинстона Черчилля до Тони Блэра. В мировом масштабе ни одна фигура не находилась в центре дел своей страны дольше королевы...

В наш эгалитарный век есть модная, но бездумная точка зрения, которая заключается в том, что институт монархии - анахронизм, не имеющий ценности и обреченный на смерть, что никто не может - и не должен - получить работу по наследству, что в нашем современном обществе осуществление любой власти должно искать оправдание через выборы, что мы должны постепенно отказаться от монархии и двинуться в направлении прекрасного нового мира республики.

Век почитания авторитетов ушел безвозвратно. Но то, что мы живем в эру самоутверждения, еще не значит, что нужно отказаться от наследственного института, который предлагает более высокие ценности, чем продвижение себя, и, к тому же, является испытанной частью нашего образа жизни. Поступить так - значит поддаться узкому и невежественному предрассудку и порвать жизненно важные связи, удерживающие религиозное, социальное, культурное и политическое разнообразие, составляющее Соединенное королевство.

Дело противников монархии основано на сомнительных положениях. Они отказываются признать как достоинства наследственной монархии, так и недостатки республики. Парадоксально и то, что в век недоверия к политикам некоторые хотели бы проводить еще и выборы главы государства.

Монархия стоит над партийностью политики так, как не может и надеяться стоять выборный глава государства. Монархия сохраняется как устойчивое величественное строение во времена, когда многие определенности старого режима, кажется, ушли в прошлое. Многие озабочены тем, что наше общество иногда кажется поверхностным и подверженным культу звезд; обществом, в котором выбор поп-идолов вызывает больше интереса, чем выборы тех, кто нами управляет.

Монархия напоминает нам о более позитивных элементах британского характера: служении, долге, сдержанности. Все они - основа фундамента цивилизованного общества. Монархия поддерживает традицию, стабильность и, что ободряет больше всего, преемственность. Она тихо и терпеливо работает для общественного блага...

Монархия остается наиболее важным символом объединенной нации, и во время, когда непродуманное законодательство превращает страну в собрание региональных удельных княжеств, королева, возможно, до сих пор остается единственным и самым важным элементом, удерживающим всех нас вместе. Можно ли будет сдержать остаточные требования независимости Шотландии и Уэльса, если главой государства станет английский президент, а не наследственный монарх, который связан историческими узами со всеми частями страны?

...Когда люди в далеких землях говорят "королева", они имеют в виду нашу королеву. Они заинтригованы ей и очарованы концепцией нашей монархии. Они признают ее ценность издалека. В странах Содружества - даже в республиках - сохраняется теплое отношение к британской монархии, которое идет дальше просто чувства. Оно приносит значительную добавочную стоимость британскому туризму, торговле и политическому влиянию.

Смерть королевы-матери пробудила инстинкты, которые, как думали многие - а некоторые надеялись - давно исчезли. Тысячи, выстроившиеся в очередь в Вестминстерское аббатство, и еще миллионы в городах и деревнях, которые испытывали те же чувства - немые свидетели того, о чем мы говорим так редко - ценности нашей монархии.

Подумайте над тем, что случится, если она исчезнет. Президент-политикан. Потеря бесценного дара политической нейтральности главы государства. Конец памяти институтов страны о монархе, долго остающемся на своем посту.

Соединенное королевство, скорее всего, распадется на нации, его составляющие. Связи внутри содружества ослабеют. У благотворительных движений не будет патронов - членов королевской семьи. Военные без шефов полков. Во время испытаний некуда будет направить взгляд. Это будет Британия, изменившаяся к худшему, страна, лишенная своего самого выразительного достояния.

Но этого не случится. Выраженное многими словами послание Вестминстера ясно и определенно: мы довольны монархией - и по-другому не будет.

Есть ли будущее у британской монархии?

Принц Чарльз и Камилла Паркер-Боулз: будущее монархии?

Больше ста лет назад королева Виктория провозгласила, что монархия не переживет ее больше, чем на 20 лет. Сейчас этот прогноз кажется слишком пессимистичным. Похороны королевы-матери в апреле этого года показали, что монархия еще очень популярна среди простых британцев.

Как бы то ни было, смерть королевы-матери послужила своего рода водоразделом в истории современной британской монархии.

Хотя сторонники республиканского строя находятся в Британии в явном меньшинстве, даже многие консервативные монархисты считают, что давно настало время перемен.

Что же необходимо изменить в королевской власти Британии? Каждый по-своему видит ответ на этот вопрос. Некоторые говорят, что пора отделить англиканскую церковь, главой которой является королева, от государства.

Предлагается и отменить закон о престолонаследии 1701 года, согласно которому наследник престола не может жениться на католичке, а наследница престола, соответственно, быть замужем за католиком.

Есть люди, которые возмущаются тем, что королева не платит налогов. Они требуют, чтобы Елизавета II, как обычный гражданин страны, заплатила налог на наследство, причитающееся ей после смерти матери.

В повестке дня, вероятно, стоит и сокращение публичной роли членов королевской семьи - многим надоели постоянные скандалы, которые сопровождают некоторых членов августейшей фамилии.

Поговаривают, что в какой-то момент Елизавету II, которая стала королевой в 1952 году после смерти отца Георга VI, могут убедить отречься от престола, чтобы правление сына было не слишком коротким.

Республиканское меньшинство британцев убеждено, что этого недостаточно, и требуют полной отмены монархии.

Возможно, однако, что разговоры о кардинальных реформах, которые ведутся уже давно, ни к чему не приведут, и все перемены сведутся к тому, что наследник престола, принц Уэльский Чарльз, наконец, женится на своей давней любовнице Камилле Паркер-Боулз.

50 лет Елизавете II удавалось сохранять любовь и уважение подданных, какая бы партия ни находилась у власти, и какой бы премьер ни правил - консерватор-империалист Уинстон Черчилль или умеренный лейборист Гарольд Уилсон.

Британская монархия, по мнению многих, выжила потому, что подстраивалась под привычки и настроения времени. Скорее всего, семья Виндзоров и в будущем сохранит за собой место на британском троне, которое ее представители занимают с 1714 года.

Exercise 1: Translate in writing the underlined part.

Exercise 2: Give summary of the article above, formulate your opinion.

Мнение: "монархия должна уйти"

Энтони Скривенер, юрист, бывший председатель Совета адвокатов (опубликовано в газете "Гардиан" 7 декабря 2000 года)

Среди самого важного наследия, которое мы дали свободному миру, две главнейшие вещи - это парламентское правительство и суд присяжных. И то, и другое подрывает власть монарха и передает власть народу. Много времени потребовалось на то, чтобы вырвать политическую власть из рук монарха и передать ее парламенту. От "Магна карты" до гражданской войны, этот процесс сопровождался гибелью тысяч наших предков.

Американцы, в отличие от нас, не стали строить парламентское правительство по кирпичику в течение сотен лет. В результате славной революции горстка людей разработали Декларацию независимости, которая до сих пор является наиболее высоким и простым выражением прав обычных людей. Конституция США начинается с таких волшебных слов "Мы, народ..."

С принятием одного-единственного документа вся связь с монархией была обрублена, и вместе с ней отошли в прошлое привилегированные классы: аристократия и всяческие глупые титулы. Важнейшей честью было и остается называться мистером, миссис или мисс. Это произошло более 200 лет назад, когда родилась эгалитарная республика Соединенных Штатов.

Мы, каким-то образом, отстали. Мы шли по этому пути, но повернули не туда. Ни одно из наших прав не гарантировано от хищнического правительства, которое хотело бы усилить свой контроль над государственными институтами. Американское правительство не смогло бы вмешаться не в свое дело и контролировать право гражданина на суд присяжных - как предлагает [министр внутренних дел Великобритании на момент написания статьи] Джек Стро. Президент Соединенных Штатов не может назначить своих приятелей и спонсоров в верхнюю палату парламента. Эти люди должны быть избраны народом. Демократия заключается именно в этом.

Я никогда не понимал преимуществ строя, при котором лидером нации становятся те, чьи родители имели эту должность. Мы осудили бы такую практику в промышленности или любой другой области человеческой деятельности. Мы верим в меритократию [правление людей, отобранных на основании их заслуг]. Вы можете пройти путь от бедного обитателя муниципального жилья до Палаты общин, скамьи Высокого суда или Даунинг стрит, 10 - но вам не удастся стать главой государства. Это право зарезервировано за Домом Виндзоров.

Так обстоит дело сейчас, и, исходя из прошлых прецедентов, если у нас кончатся Виндзоры, мы достанем семейное дерево и отыщем какого-нибудь неизвестного немецкого принца (чей титул не признается в его Фатерланде) - и импортируем его, чтобы он нами правил. Мы уже так делали. Конечно, его имя нужно будет изменить на английский лад. И потом, это будет стоить много денег.

Легко отпускать дешевые шутки по поводу средневековой системы, которая продолжает действовать в XXI веке. Обычный довод против перемен такой: что вместо этой системы? Можем ли мы вообразить президента Маргарет Тэтчер или Тони Бенна [левый политик, убежденный сторонник социализма и противник монархии]? Полагаю, что вкратце ответ таков: легче избавиться от выборного лидера, чем от потомственного монарха. Это хорошо продемонстрировали французская и русская революции. На самом деле, главой государства мог бы стать спикер Палаты общин.

Старые традиции важны - я имею в виду стук в дверь Черного Скипетра, забавные одеяния спикера и прочее. Это напоминает нам о прошлом - о борьбе наших предков за права, которые мы сейчас принимаем как должное. Мы должны сохранить традиции, но нет довода, по которым не могли бы развиваться новые традиции.

Именно парламент предоставляет возможности обычным людям. Именно парламент в противостоянии с королем вырвал власть для представителей народа.

Вначале спикер Палаты Общин был представителем короля, но потом все изменилось и он стал выражать волю Палаты общин. С тех пор именно спикер контролирует дебаты выборных членов Палаты и имеет власть наказывать их; именно ему они выражают знаки почтения.

Спикер представляет Палату общин и Палата представляет нас. Какими бы ни были их политические взгляды в прошлом, все спикеры сохраняют нейтралитет, остаются над политикой, что является основной характеристикой того, кто представляет нацию в целом.

Вместе с монархией уйдет и аристократия - старая и новая. Ведь титул спикера - просто мистер или миссис. Мы войдем в XXI век с верхней палатой, избранной народом, как и другие демократии.

Westminster - the seat of Parliament

Her Majesty's Government, in spite of its name, derives its authority and power from its party representation in Parliament. While the government machinery is frequently referred to as 'Whitehall', Parliament is known as 'Westminster', since it is housed in the Palace of Westminster, once a home of the monarchy... Like the monarchy, Parliament is an ancient institution, dating from the middle of the thirteenth century.

Parliament is the seat of British democracy, but it is perhaps valuable to remember that while the House of Lords was created in order to provide a council of the nobility for the king, the Commons were summoned originally in order to provide the king with money.«The more money a king demanded, the more the Commons questioned its use. Because of its growing, financial power, its ability to" raise or withhold", money, the House of Commons eventually - from the seventeenth century onwards - gained power not only in matters of finance but also of legislation over both the monarch and also the Lords. Parliament is the supreme legislative body of the state. Free from the constraint of a written constitution it may make any laws it pleases. It could even prolong its own life without consulting the electorate, if it chose to do so. Thus Parliament, rather than the will of the people, is clearly the real sovereign power in the state. The only guarantee against parliamentary tyranny is the sense of tradition and reasonablenance of its members.

Furthermore, in practice it is not Parliament as a whole which is sovereign, but the government of the day and its supporters, since they almost invariably form a majority in the Commons. For the duration of its normal term, five years,.the government of the day may enact or implement its policies, so long as it can ensure party support in the Commons. In the words of one distinguished and long-serving parliamentarian who has sat in both the Commons and the Lords, Britain's parliamentary system is in practice a form of 'elective dictatorship', an important qualification on the idea of Britain as a democracy.

Parliament's functions today are to pass laws, to raise enough money through taxation to enable the government to function, to examine government policy and administration, particularly its financial programme, and to debate or discuss important political issues.

The life of a Parliament is not fixed, and the government of the day may call for a general election at any time during its five-year term. Each Parliament is divided into annual sessions, running normally from October to October with breaks for public holidays and for a long summer 'recess' (usually late July until October)".

The House of Commons

The dynamic power of Parliament lies in the House of Commons. Its 659 members represent 529 constituencies in England, 40 in Wales, 72 in Scotland and 18 in Northern Ireland. There are only seats in the Commons debating chamber for 370 members, but except on matters of great interest, it is unusual for all members to be press at any one time. Many MPs find themselves in other rooms of the Commons, participating in a variety of committees and meetings necessary for an effective parliamentary process.

The shape of the Commons debating chamber makes an important comment on the political process in Britain. Unlike many European chambers which are semicircular, thus reflecting the spectrum of political opinion in their seating plan, the Commons is rectangular, with the Speaker's (the presiding MP) chair at one end, and either side of it five rows of benches running the length of the chamber. On one side, to the Speaker's right, sits Her Majesty's Government and its supporters, and on the other Her Majesty's Opposition, composed of all Members who oppose the government. The front benches on either side are reserved for members of the Cabinet and other Ministers, and Opposition spokesmen, known as the 'Shadow Cabinet', respectively.

Behind them and further down the chamber sit MPs from their own party, known as 'back-benchers”. The layout Hints at two features of British political life: that it has traditionally been a two-party system and that the process is essentially adversarial (indeed, a red line on the floor in front of each front bench still marks the limit - a little more than two swords' lengths - beyond which a Member may not approach the opposite benches). The Speaker is chosen by a vote of the entire House, although in practice the party leaders consult their supporters in order to achieve informal agreement beforehand. The Speaker is responsible for the orderly conduct of business, and is required to act with scrupulous impartiality between Members in the House. In the words of one past Speaker, 'It's not my duty as Speaker to bend arguments in any way, but to ensure that everything that happens here is seen clearly by those who put us here. We are, after all, the servants of those who put us here: the electorate.' The Speaker is assisted by three Deputy Speakers. Unlike peers, who can only claim expenses, MPs are paid salaries, approximately twice the average national wage, but substantially less than most MPs could earn outside the Commons.

The House of Lords

The upper chamber of Parliament, the House o Lords, is not democratic in any sense at all. It consists of four categories of peer, totalling 1,1 members in 1996. The majority are hereditary, peers, currently about 750, of whom only about half take an active interest in the affairs of state. A smaller number, about 400, are 'life' peers - an idea introduced in 1958 to elevate to the peerage certain people who have rendered political or public service to the nation. The purpose was not merely to honour but also to enhance the quality of business done in the Lords...Only one-quarter of these life peers are women. All life peers are created on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day, with nominations also sought from opposition parties. Nine of the most senior judges, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly known as the “Law Lords”), are also entitled to sit in the Lords. Finally, alongside these secular peers, the Lords Temporal, are the 26 most senior bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, the Lords Spiritual: The Law Lords and the Lords Spiritual are the ancient non-hereditary component of the Lords.

Until 1911 the Lords were able to reject draft laws, known as bills, passed in the Commons, and thus frustrate not only the government of the day, but also the will of the Commons. Since then the Lords have been unable to challenge financial legislation, and have only been able to delay other legislation (since 1949 for no more than one session) but not prevent it. Their only other surviving discretionary power is to veto an attempt by the Commons to prolong its own life beyond its five-year term. The role of the Lords, therefore, is now more to warn than to frustrate over-zealous governments, and they have done this more by the proposition of amendments to legislation which causes them unease, than by direct opposition.

Although there are over 1,000 peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords, average daily attendance is only about 300 and most of these are life peers who retain a strong interest in the affairs of state. The Lords conduct their business in a far more orderly fashion than the Commons. The House is presided over by the Lord Chancellor, the senior law officer of the state. The position is not like that of the Speaker, for the Lord Chancellor is not impartial, but a government officer. He or she is responsible for the administration of justice and is also an automatic member of the Cabinet.

A larger number of peers support the Conservative Party than the other parties-. Those active peers who support Labour or the Liberal Democrats, plus the independent peers (who have 'cross-benches' across the back of the chamber to sit upon), are together almost the same in number as the Conservatives; This preponderance in favour of the Conservatives arises partly because the majority of hereditary peers sympathise more with the Conservative Party than its opponents. Also Labour declined to nominate candidates for life peerages for a period during the 1980s since its party policy included abolition of the Lords on the grounds that it was an undemocratic anachronism. Despite this preponderance, however, no Conservative government can be absolutely sure of a majority, if its proposals are controversial. Peers, of whatever party loyalty, are far freer to vote according to their own convictions, rather than party policy, than are members of the Commons.

Лордов будут избирать

Великобритания проводит реформу верхней палаты парламента

Вчера нижняя палата парламента Великобритании — палата общин — проголосовала за проведение реформы палаты лордов, согласно которой часть представителей верхней палаты теперь будет избираться. Впрочем, полной выборности лордам все-таки удалось избежать. Эксперты считают, что один из старейших институтов страны, палата лордов, сильно тормозил принятие многих законопроектов, а потому нуждался в реформировании.

Палата лордов до сих пор была невыборной частью парламента Великобритании и на сегодняшний день состоит из 750 человек: двух архиепископов, 24 епископов англиканской церкви и 724 членов пэрства. Институт палаты лордов возник в XIV веке и до начала XIX века обладал большей властью, нежели палата общин. По­степенно верхняя палата стала утра­чивать свои полномочия, а 10 лет назад премьер-министр страны Тони Блэр, только пришедший к власти, выгнал из верхней палаты 90% наследственных пэров. Помимо законодательной власти палата лордов обладает также и судебной: в ее состав входит, например, Высший апелляционный суд.

Споры о судьбе верхней палаты Британского парламента продолжаются несколько лет. Радикально настроенные его члены предлагают кардинальные изменения в парламентской системе страны. Сейчас всерьез обсуждаются несколько вариантов реформы, начиная от полной ликвидации палаты лордов до 100-процентного или частичного выборного формирования. Нижняя палата, решающая судьбу верх­ней, очевидно, пока не готова к радикальным переменам.

По словам руководителя Центра британских исследований Института Европы РАН Алексея Громыко, в Великобритании давно велись дебаты о том, что в стране развитой демократии парламент не может формироваться по признаку наследственности или назначения. В 2003 году палата представителей уже предпринимала попытку реформировать верхнюю палату парламента, однако тогда палата общин так и не смогла набрать большинства голосов для осуществления каких-либо изменений. На этой неделе спикер палаты общин Джек Стро неоднократно заявлял о необходимости проведения реформ. По его словам, вчерашнее голосование было последним шансом их осуществить. «В противном случае, — предостерегал он, — страна сможет вернуться к этому вопросу только через поколение. Общественность не будет больше терпеть невыборную палату лордов».

Следует отметить, что и консерваторы-тори, и либералы-виги, выступая на этой неделе перед парламентариями, высказывались за принятие изменений. Представитель либерал-демократов Саймон Хьюз отметил: «Если избираемая палата общин говорит о необходимости реформ, то неизбираемая палата лордов не должна стоять на нашем пути». Еще дальше пошел парламентарий от лейбористов Билл Этерингтон, заявивший, что стране не помешает и избираемый президент взамен наследственного монарха. «Если уж мы избавляемся от наслед­ственных членов палаты лордов, то следует обратить внимание и на монархию. Я не понимаю, почему у нас должен быть глава государства, оказавшийся на своем месте исключительно по факту рождения», — сказал он.

ДЕНИС ЖУЙКОВ

09.03.2007

Who is Who in the Houses of Parliament

The Chamber of the House of Commons

S Mr Speaker

p Press Galleries

H Hansard Reporters

0 Government Officials' Box

(advisors to Ministers)

С Clerks of (he House

T Table of the House

D Despatch Boxes

Ma Mace

L Lines

В Bar of the House

X Cross Benches

SA Sergeant at Arms

M Members' Galleries

G Visitors` Galleries

The Chamber of the House of Lords.

The arrangement of seating in both Houses of Parliament reflects the nature of the party system. Both debating chambers are rectangular in shape, are overlooked by galleries, and have at one end the seat of the Speaker, in front of which stands the Table of the House, and at the other end a technical barrier, known as the 'Bar' (two bronze rods normally kept retracted). The benches for members run the length of the chamber on both sides. Intersected by a gang-way, the benches face each other across a broad area known as the 'floor of the House'. The benches to the right of the Speaker are used by the Government and its supporters; those to the left are occupied by the Opposition, and members of any other parties. In the House of Lords, there are also the bishops' benches and a number of cross-benches for peers who do not wish to attach themselves to any party.

Leaders of the Government and the Opposition sit on the front benches of their respective sides to the Speaker's side of the central dividing aisle with their supporters. The backbenchers, the ordinary members of Parliament, sit behind them, occupying the seats behind the front benches. In the House of Commons, where there is room for only 350 MPs on the benches backbenchers may also sit in the side galleries, which can accommodate a further 90 members. In both Houses the galleries also provide accommodation for visitors, the press and government and parliamentary officials.

Each House has its Leader. The Leader of the House of Commons is the member of the Government primarily responsible for organizing the business of the House, and for providing reasonable facilities for the House to debate matters about which it is concerned. One of the functions of the Leader is to announce the following week's programme to the House. The Leader may also move procedural motions relating to the business of the House. In the absence of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House of Commons acts as the spokesman of the House on ceremonial and other occasions. The Leader of the House of Lords has similar functions in the Lords and is regarded as the main Government spokesman in the House.

Outside Parliament, party control is exercised by national and local organi­zations. Inside Parliament, and particularly in the House of Commons, it is exercised by officers known as 'Whips'. There are Government and Opposition Whips in both Houses of Parliament, but the Whips in the House of Lords are less exclusively concerned with party matters. On the Government side in the House of Commons the Chief Whip is Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. There are other Government Whips, including the Deputy Chief Whip and five Assistant Whips.

The Government Chief Whip, who is directly answerable to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons, is responsible for settling the details of the Government's programme of business, for estimating the time likely to be required for each item, and for arranging the business of the individual sittings.

Duties which are common to the Whips of all parties include keeping members informed of Forthcoming parliamentary business; ensuring the attendance of members and their party vote; providing lists of members to serve on select and standing committees. The Whips are also responsible for conveying upwards to the party leadership the opinions of their back-bench members. The Government Whips in the House of Lords often act as Government spokesmen in the House.

In the House of Lords, the office of Speaker (the Lord Chancellor) carries with it no authority to control debate. Members of the House of Lords do not address themselves to the Lord Chancellor during debates, but to their fellow members in the House. If, during a debate, two peers rise to their feet at the same time, the House itself determines who shall speak: the Lord Chancellor has no power to decide which peer shall take the floor. In the Commons, on the contrary, the Speaker has full authority to give effect, promptly and decisively, to the rules and orders of the House.

The Speaker of the House of Commons presides over the House of Commons. In debate all speeches are addressed to him, and he calls upon members to speak. If he rises to give a ruling upon a doubtful point, or for any other reason, he must be heard in silence, and while he is on his feet no other MP may remain standing. It is the function of the Speaker to guard against abuse of procedure or any infringement of minority rights; and to allow or disallow a closure motion (to end discussion so that the matter may be put to the vote). He also has certain powers to check irrelevance and repetition, and save time in various other respects. In cases of grave and continuous disorder, he has power to adjourn the-House or suspend the sitting on his own initiative. Voting in the House of Commons is carried out under the direction of the Speaker, whose duty is to pronounce the final result. In the event of a tied vote (when an equal number of votes is cast) the Speaker must give his decisive vote.

A vote is taken by means of a division (that is to say the separation into two lobbies of the members who wish to vote for or against a question). Members voting 'Aye' go out of the chamber into the lobby on the right of the Speaker, while those voting 'No' pass into the lobby on his left.

Parliamentary procedure

Each parliamentary session begins with the 'State Opening of Parliament', a ceremonial occasion which the Queen proceeds from Buckingham Palace to the Palace of Westminster where she delivers the Queen's Speech from her throne in the House of Lords. Her speech is drafted by her government, and describes what the government intends to implement during the forthcoming session. Leading members of the Commons may hear the speech from the far end of the chamber, but are not allowed to enter the House of Lords. During the next five or so days, the government and Opposition debate aspects of the Queen's Speech in the Commons and vote on the amendments which the Opposition proposes. Since the speech is a statement of policy, defeat on any such vote would oblige the government to resign.

For most of the year the Commons adopts a routine of meeting each weekday afternoon, and 'sitting until about 10.30 p.m. although it sometimes sits beyond midnight. On Fridays the Commons sits from 9.30 a.m. through to 3.00 p.m., rising early in order to allow MPs to return to their constituencies for the weekend, where they must make themselves available and accessible for local matters, complaints and attendance at formal functions. The proceedings of Parliament are public, and space is available for a small number of people, especially the press, to listen. Since 1803 the proceedings of Parliament have been published the following day as Hansard, named after the man who first began to publish the record. Proceedings of both Houses are also now televised, the Lords since 1984 and the Commons since 1989. The manner in which business is conducted is the result of custom and precedent, from which have emerged standing orders which govern the details of practice in each House.

Each day begins, after brief opening formalities, with Question Time, lasting approximately an hour. MPs are able to ask ministers or other MPs questions on any point they may choose. Questions must be handed in 48 hours ahead, to allow ministers and their departmental staff time to prepare an answer. Naturally, both the Opposition and the party of government seek to use this period in order to reveal the weakness of their opponents. Once a minister's formal answer has been given, supplementary questions may be asked which the minister is expected to answer, Ministers and their civil servants are expected to have anticipated what further questions may be asked. Supplementary questions are used by the Opposition to outmanoeuvre a minister and reveal a weakness in government policy, or by an MP anxious to persuade the government to modify its course of action. On two afternoons each week the Prime Minister will answer questions on general policy matters. These occasions are usually the most lively.

After Question Time, the main debate of the day takes place. Time is given on 24 days during a session for individual MPs representing neither government nor Opposition to introduce debates or private Members' bills. But most of the time available in any parliamentary session is devoted to scrutiny of government spending, and debating new bills the government wishes to introduce. The system of debate is much the same in both chambers. It originates in a 'motion' (a proposal) 'moved' (proposed) by a minister or Member of the House. The Speaker then proposes the question as a subject of debate.

This is not as spontaneous as it may seem. The Leader of the House (appointed by the government) agrees with the Prime Minister the general business, including debates, which they want. The Leader of the House has cabinet rank, and is responsible for planning the transaction of government business in the Commons (a Leader is appointed in the Lords also), and for enabling proper debate of those matters of concern to the House. Twenty opposition days each session allow the Opposition to choose the subjects for debate. At the end of a debate the Speaker asks MPs if they accept the motion. If there is disagreement, there is a division as MPs enter either the 'Aye' (yes) or 'No' lobbies, corridors running either side of the Commons chamber. A bell rings throughout the House six minutes before the lobby doors close to enable MPs, wherever they may be in the House, to vote. Party 'whips' (or managers) stand outside the door of the lobby into which they expect their party's members to pass. Unless it is a free vote, members who ignore party policy risk the strong displeasure of the party leadership. Indeed, the leadership may 'withdraw the whip' from a disobedient member, in other words suspend him or her from party membership either temporarily or in a few cases, expel that member from the party. Without membership of the party, an MP's political career is only likely to last until the next general election Parliament's most important function is to create law. A draft law takes the form of a parliamentary bill. Most of these are public bills, implementing government policy. A bill is normally only drafted after exhaustive consultation with concerned professional, voluntary and other agencies. Proposals sometimes take the form of 'white papers', stating government policy, which can be debated before a bill is introduced. 'Green papers' are published when the government wants a full public discussion before it formulates its own proposals.

The process of passing a public (or government) bill is similar in both Houses. Its publication in printed form is announced in the chamber, and this announcement is called its 'first reading'. Its 'second reading', usually a few weeks later, is the occasion for a full debate in the House, unless there is general assent that a debate is unnecessary. If necessary the bill is passed to a committee which considers whether amendments would be desirable in the light of MPs' criticisms or concerns. At the 'third reading' the revised bill is considered in its final form, and a vote taken if necessary. The bill then passes through the Lords in г similar fashion. Once a bill has completed its parliamentary procedures, it is sent to the Queen foi royal assent (the third formal element of Parliament), by which it passes into law as an Act of Parliament. Royal assent has not been refused since 1 707.

Parliamentary committees

It is natural that in both the Commons and the Lords committees should be formed to consider -specific matters or bills passing through Parliament. The Commons have a number of 'standing committees' which examine bills during the procedural stages until they become law. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all represented by permanent standing committees. In addition, standing committees are appointed to consider specific bills. Between 16 and 50 MPs are normally appointed to a standing committee, usually reflecting the balance of party representation in Parliament

In 1979 a new and important 'select committee' system was created to examine and monitor government departments and policies, and the manner in which ministers discharge their responsibilities. One reason for doing this was the difficulty individual MPs had in scrutinizing government activity adequately. Another was the increase in party discipline which made it difficult for MPs to act independently of party policy. Members of the governing party tended to support government policy and action, those of the opposing party tended to criticise it. There had already been one or two select committees forparticular matters, but this was the first time a comprehensive scrutinising of government departments had been attempted.

The select committee system consists of 1 7 individual committees 'shadowing' the expenditure, administration and policy of the main government departments. Each committee has a more or less permanent cross-party membership, all of whom have acquired considerable expertise in their respective fields. They give an opportunity for MPs to act more independently of their party than they are able to do in the debating chamber. During the period of Conservative government in the 1980s, for example, a number of select committees, including their Conservative members, were strongly critical of the government.

This, briefly, is the constitutional and political system of Britain. As will be seen in the following chapter, the system as currently operated gives rise to considerable controversy. Some people are dissatisfied with its fundamental principles, and others with what they believe are the dangers of the way the system actually operates.

Whitehall - the seat of government

'Her Majesty's Government' governs in the name of the Queen, and its hub, Downing Street, lies in Whitehall, a short walk from Parliament. Following a general election, the Queen invites the leader of the majority (or largest, in "the absence of an overall majority) party represented in the Commons, to form a government on her behalf. Government ministers are almost invariably members of the House of Commons, but infrequently members of the House of Lords are appointed. These are at a disadvantage since it is in the Commons that the government is expected to explain its conduct of affairs. All government ministers, even the Prime Minister, who are members of the Commons, continue to represent the parliamentary 'constituencies' which elected them. Unless the government is a coalition - the last of these was formed during the war years 1939-45 - governments today are drawn solely from one political party. But this has not always been so. During the nineteenth century leading politicians were far freer to follow their own convictions or ambitions rather than party discipline.

Most governments consist of about 100 ministers, but the essential core is the Cabinet, the 20 or so most senior ministers invited by the Prime Minister to belong to it. Cabinet government demands collective responsibility and confidentiality. Within the Cabinet the Prime Minister is meant to be first among equals. In theory this encourages balance and prudence in both policy and action. In practice the Cabinet principle can give rise to tension. While a Prime Minister must give strong leadership, he or she must allow for each minister to exercise responsibility within their field and should encourage collective decision-making on controversial issues, particularly ones beyond the responsibility of one ministry.

In fact Prime Ministers have much more power than first among equals. They enjoy undisputed political leadership. Ministers must obey their will, or persuade the Prime Minister of their own point of view. If a clash of wills cannot be resolved, the minister must resign. In 1989 the Chancellor of the Exchequer (responsible for finance) suddenly resigned after persistent rumours about the Prime Minister's overbearing manner in Cabinet. In explaining his resignation, he gave a classic definition of the Cabinet principle: 'For our system of Cabinet government to work effectively, the Prime Minister of the day must appoint ministers that he or she trusts and then leave them to carry out the policy. When differences of view emerge, as they are bound to do from time to time, they should be resolved privately and, wherever appropriate, collectively. The ex-Chancellor made this statement to the House of Commons, for all ministers are accountable to it. Although not the case on this occasion, once the confidence of a majority of his or her colleagues has been lost, a Cabinet minister has no choice but to resign. Because of the enormous increase in government business, all senior government ministers - most of whom have the title of Secretary of State - have junior ministers (Ministers of State or Parliamentary undersecretaries) to help with the workload. They are all subject to the rules of collective responsibility and must not disagree publicly with government policy.

Although government is essentially political, it depends upon a permanent body of officials, the Civil Service, to administer the decisions of ministers, and to keep the wheels of government -in its broadest sense - turning. The Civil Service, employing almost 500,000 people, is expected to discharge its responsibilities in a politically impartial way. Civil servants must be as loyal to an incoming government as to the outgoing one, however much as private individuals they may be pleased or dismayed at the change of government. Those civil servants wishing to stand for Parliament must first resign from the Civil Service.

The heart of the Civil Service is the Cabinet Office, whose Secretary is the most senior civil servant at any given time. The responsibilities are considerable, including the proper and smooth running of the whole Civil Service as well as serving ministers collectively in the conduct of Cabinet business and ensuring the coordination of policy at the highest level. In each ministry or department the senior official, or Permanent Secretary, and his or her immediate subordinates, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, remain responsible for assisting their minister in, the implementation of government policy. The Permanent Secretary does not really have a counterpart either in Europe or the United States.

ln practice the implementation of policy is a two-way process - cleverly portrayed in the 1980s in two famous satirical television series, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister- in which alongside genuine cooperation, there is also a permanent trial of strength between the political will of the minister and the concern of civil servants to minimize departures from known and trusted methods of government. Both sides are tempted to view the other as a potential obstacle to good government, but both also moderate the dangers implicit in one or other party enjoying unchallenged powers. In the words of one ex-minister, the Civil Service is 'a beautifully designed and effective braking mechanism. It produces a hundred well-argued answers against initiative and change.

There is a strong tradition of loyalty on the part of civil servants towards their ministers. A good example is recalled by a minister, who having rejected very strong advice from his (unusually) female permanent secretary, instructed her to draft the policy paper he wished to put, to Cabinet. She produced a paper that was 'terse, clear, strongly argued and very convincing' for a policy with which she did not agree. As he recalled, 'She had had her say, the internal argument was over... from now on it was her job to help me persuade my colleagues of its wisdom. 'A minister and his or her senior civil servants will be the strongest of allies in fighting for the interests of their department, or ministry, against competing ones, particularly in the allocation of the financial budget.

http://velikobritaniya.org/administrativnoe-ystroistvo-velikobritanii/gosydarstvennoe-ystroistvo.html

Письменно перевести

Высшую исполнительную власть осуществляет правительство во главе с премьер-министром, который наряду с наследственным монархом является лидером страны. В правительство Великобритании входит около 100 человек; наиболее важные и влиятельные члены правительства образуют более узкую коллегию – Кабинет министров.

Правительство никогда не собирается на заседания и не принимает решений. Из его состава выделяется более узкий кабинет ведущих министров (18–22 человека, в 1997 г. – 22), в их числе всегда государственные секретари внутренних дел и обороны, лорд-канцлер, канцлер казначейства и др.

Он созывается на заседания и принимает решения, хотя и редко. Обычно этот кабинет заседает в личной резиденции премьер-министра. Но чаще на эти заседания в доме премьера (одно время раз в неделю) собирается «внутренний кабинет» – несколько ведущих лиц, пользующихся особым доверием премьер-министра. «Внутренний кабинет» принимает решения от имени кабинета.

Правительство формируется партией большинства в палате общин, представляет ей программу, которая утверждается голосованием. Это акт выражения доверия правительству. В состав правительства входят, во-первых, главы министерств и ведомств, являющиеся членами кабинета. Они получают все решения кабинета («внутреннего кабинета»). Остальные министры, если они не были приглашены на заседание, получают лишь выдержки из решений кабинета, которые касаются их ведомств.

Также членами правительства являются министры и государственные министры, т.е. заместители ведущих министров, а также все младшие министры – заместители других министров, не входящие в состав кабинета. Они участвуют в заседаниях кабинета по приглашению. Есть территориальные министерства: по делам Шотландии, Уэльса, Северной Ирландии. Членами правительства являются некоторые лица, занимающие традиционные еще со времен феодализма должности (например, лорд – хранитель печати). Далее министры без портфеля, которые оказывают помощь премьер-министру по его указаниям. Наконец, в состав правительства включается особая категория младших министров: парламентские секретари, представляющие министра в парламенте.

При премьер-министре и министрах существует множество вспомогательных органов – комитеты, комиссии, секретариаты, службы. Существуют также парламентские службы, которые следят за дебатами в парламенте, информируют министра о вопросах, поднятых в парламенте (в основном касающихся данного ведомства), готовят ему ответы на вопросы депутатов, выступления в парламенте.

В Великобритании министерства имеют отделения на местах, с которыми местные органы самоуправления согласовывают назначение некоторых муниципальных чиновников (например, в сфере пожарной охраны, муниципальной милиции и др.).

В решении вопросов местного значения важную роль играют органы местного муниципального самоуправления. За последние несколько лет эта структура существенно изменилась. В Северной Ирландии было учреждено 26 районных управлений. А также была упрощена комплексная организация самоуправления в Англии и Уэльсе и преобразована в двух яростную систему, состоящую из 53 крупных управлений графств и 369 менее крупных районных управлений. В Уэльсе вместо 13 прежних графств теперь осталось только восемь, причем пять из них получили валлийские названия. В Шотландии после реформы стало девять областных и 53 районных управления.

Список Министров http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/full-list-of-new-cabinet-ministers

Высшую исполнительную власть осуществляет правительство во главе с премьер-министром, который наряду с наследственным монархом является лидером страны. В правительство Великобритании входит около 100 человек; наиболее важные и влиятельные члены правительства образуют более узкую коллегию – Кабинет министров.

Правительство никогда не собирается на заседания и не принимает решений. Из его состава выделяется более узкий кабинет ведущих министров (18–22 человека, в 1997 г. – 22), в их числе всегда государственные секретари внутренних дел и обороны, лорд-канцлер, канцлер казначейства и др.

Он созывается на заседания и принимает решения, хотя и редко. Обычно этот кабинет заседает в личной резиденции премьер-министра. Но чаще на эти заседания в доме премьера (одно время раз в неделю) собирается «внутренний кабинет» – несколько ведущих лиц, пользующихся особым доверием премьер-министра. «Внутренний кабинет» принимает решения от имени кабинета.

Правительство формируется партией большинства в палате общин, представляет ей программу, которая утверждается голосованием. Это акт выражения доверия правительству. В состав правительства входят, во-первых, главы министерств и ведомств, являющиеся членами кабинета. Они получают все решения кабинета («внутреннего кабинета»). Остальные министры, если они не были приглашены на заседание, получают лишь выдержки из решений кабинета, которые касаются их ведомств.

Также членами правительства являются министры и государственные министры, т.е. заместители ведущих министров, а также все младшие министры – заместители других министров, не входящие в состав кабинета. Они участвуют в заседаниях кабинета по приглашению. Есть территориальные министерства: по делам Шотландии, Уэльса, Северной Ирландии. Членами правительства являются некоторые лица, занимающие традиционные еще со времен феодализма должности (например, лорд – хранитель печати). Далее министры без портфеля, которые оказывают помощь премьер-министру по его указаниям. Наконец, в состав правительства включается особая категория младших министров: парламентские секретари, представляющие министра в парламенте.

---

Дата добавления: 2015-10-21