Internal market governance by consensus rather than conflict? Common Frameworks and the potential for positive harmonisation

Thomas Horsley, Jo Hunt
{"title":"Internal market governance by consensus rather than conflict? Common Frameworks and the potential for positive harmonisation","authors":"Thomas Horsley, Jo Hunt","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74iad2.1083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article connects theories of positive and negative harmonisation with perspectives on self- and shared rule to examine emerging approaches to managing domestic (ie intra-United Kingdom (UK)) trade post-Brexit. Our particular focus is on a new tool of governance: the Common Frameworks – a consensus-based collaborative intergovernmental approach to policymaking in areas of devolved competence previously falling within the scope of the European Union Treaties. We explore the potential of the Frameworks as instruments of positive harmonisation with reference to emerging practice and consider their relationship with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Our analysis unmasks internal market governance post-Brexit as a contested space, reflecting deepening divisions between the UK and devolved governments regarding self- and shared rule under the UK’s territorial constitution. We identify three key drivers of contestation: a lack of consensus on the UK internal market as a regulatory object; changes in political context; and enduring structural and attitudinal imbalances favouring political control from the centre.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"90 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74iad2.1083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article connects theories of positive and negative harmonisation with perspectives on self- and shared rule to examine emerging approaches to managing domestic (ie intra-United Kingdom (UK)) trade post-Brexit. Our particular focus is on a new tool of governance: the Common Frameworks – a consensus-based collaborative intergovernmental approach to policymaking in areas of devolved competence previously falling within the scope of the European Union Treaties. We explore the potential of the Frameworks as instruments of positive harmonisation with reference to emerging practice and consider their relationship with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Our analysis unmasks internal market governance post-Brexit as a contested space, reflecting deepening divisions between the UK and devolved governments regarding self- and shared rule under the UK’s territorial constitution. We identify three key drivers of contestation: a lack of consensus on the UK internal market as a regulatory object; changes in political context; and enduring structural and attitudinal imbalances favouring political control from the centre.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过共识而非冲突来治理内部市场?共同框架和积极协调的潜力
本文将积极和消极协调的理论与自我和共享规则的观点联系起来,研究英国脱欧后管理国内(即英国内部)贸易的新方法。我们特别关注一种新的治理工具:"共同框架"--一种以共识为基础的政府间合作方法,用于在以前属于欧盟条约范围内的权力下放领域制定政策。我们参考新出现的做法,探索共同框架作为积极协调工具的潜力,并考虑其与英国《2020 年内部市场法》的关系。我们的分析揭示了英国脱欧后的内部市场治理是一个有争议的空间,反映了英国与地方政府之间在英国领土宪法下的自治与共治方面日益加深的分歧。我们确定了引发争议的三个关键驱动因素:对英国内部市场作为监管对象缺乏共识;政治环境的变化;以及有利于中央政治控制的持久结构和态度失衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Northern Ireland Executive: politics, law and a rethink of judicial intervention Fettering scrutiny on executive discretionary powers? Developments in the judicial reviewability of ministerial non-statutory guidance Inheriting the royals: royal chartered bodies in Ireland after 1922 The Union in court, Part 3: In Re Allister and Peeples’ Applications for Judicial Review [2023] UKSC 5 A continuing nuisance: Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd [2023] UKSC 16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1