Law and Politics Today: Introducing the Series

The political world is in an unprecedented and increasingly complex state.

As future lawyers, we must look beyond the headlines and consider the legal dimensions of recent developments. Controversial judicial rulings, the election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons and the confirmation of a sudden general election have created a fast-moving landscape that is difficult to track.

Over the next few weeks, this series will examine the evolving relationship between law and politics and provide clear updates on the issues that matter most.

Update One: The general election

With the December vote less than a month away, the imminent election and its potential legal impact provide a natural starting point. From policy pledges to the ongoing debates surrounding Brexit, the law is continually shaped by political decision-making.

First things first: after receiving another Brexit extension from the European Union (EU) until January, the Prime Minister sought to accelerate the Brexit process. He recognised that he needed a majority in the House of Commons to ensure that his Withdrawal Agreement passed quickly. In October, after several failed attempts, MPs agreed to a vote on the twelfth of December.

What are the legal implications?

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides that elections should occur every five years after the commencement of a parliamentary session.

Because the last election was held in 2017, the Prime Minister is not following the usual timetable. However, the Act allows early elections if two-thirds of MPs vote in favour, which is the procedure used by Theresa May in 2017. An election may also be triggered if the government loses a vote of no confidence and cannot form a new administration within fourteen days. Johnson “having received an overwhelming majority of votes in favour of an election, is not breaking the law by deviating from this five-year structure.”

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly: Brexit.

The Conservative Party: The Prime Minister’s main aim is to pass the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the EU. A key change in his deal is the removal of the United Kingdom from the EU Customs Union. Membership of the Customs Union currently allows goods to move between EU countries without taxes and requires all member states to apply the same taxes to goods arriving from outside the EU. The Prime Minister wishes to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries, something individual member states cannot do.

Because the Republic of Ireland will remain in the EU when Northern Ireland leaves with the United Kingdom, legal checks on goods moving between the two jurisdictions are planned. Any form of border is controversial, as a potential hard border could reignite political and military conflict, something both countries have sought to avoid since the Troubles of the mid-twentieth century.

The Labour Party

Labour aims to maintain a close relationship with the EU, particularly by remaining in the Customs Union.

This would result in fewer legal changes, as the laws governing trade would remain largely the same. Labour also pledges a second referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the EU or leave with a negotiated deal. If voters chose to remain, the United Kingdom would not need to engage with the EU Withdrawal Bill, which prevents EU laws from applying domestically.

The Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats remain committed to a Remain position.

If elected as a majority government, they would hold a second referendum and campaign for the United Kingdom to stay in the EU. Referendum results are not binding in law, so a Remain vote would not create legal consequences. However, the government would need to address Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 50 sets out the only procedure for exiting the EU. Theresa May invoked Article 50 in 2017, and the United Kingdom is currently in the negotiation stage. A Liberal Democrat government would need to cancel this invocation.

Other key party proposals

Although Brexit dominates political debate, issues such as the environment, employment and education remain central to public concern. Smaller parties also play an increasingly significant role as voters move away from traditional two-party politics.

The Conservative Party: charging single-use plastics

In 2015, the government introduced a law requiring retailers to charge five pence for single-use plastic bags. The new proposal to charge for all single-use plastics is broader, covering items such as straws and plastic gloves. This may lead to legal challenges from businesses seeking to avoid charges, and courts may need to define the meaning of “single use.”

The Labour Party: four-day working week

Labour proposes a four-day working week in response to stagnant productivity.

Working hours in the United Kingdom are governed by The Working Time Regulations 1998, which give effect to the EU's Working Time Directive (Directive). These laws limit workers to 48 hours a week. Labour’s proposal suggests that the Directive will no longer apply once the United Kingdom leaves the EU, foreshadowing significant legal change. Reducing working hours may also provoke mixed public responses, particularly from those in financial difficulty.

The Green Party: scrapping university tuition fees

Under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, universities may charge tuition fees.

In England and Wales, fees are capped at £9,250. The Green Party proposes abolishing tuition fees to increase access to higher education. However, teaching costs would still need to be met, likely through general taxation, which may concern the public.

The above analysis demonstrates how law and politics continually intersect. As lawyers, we must understand not only the final form of legislation but also the motives and debates that shape it.

Next week, this series will examine the legal role of the Speaker of the House of Commons and provide a profile of the newest politician to hold the position.