The ongoing and almost record‐breaking hiatus in devolved government in Northern Ireland has brought the sustainability of the region's Assembly into sharp focus. As parties in Northern Ireland consider their options for restoring (and possibly reforming) the devolved institutions, this article takes stock of the Northern Ireland Assembly's merits and demerits. It is argued that, amidst the public's understandable exasperation with the current stalemate, it is easy to forget that the Assembly operated for a decade without suspension (2007–2017) and performed some functions reasonably well. This, of course, is not to detract from the institution's serious shortcomings, though it is argued that the worst of these could be mitigated via institutional reform. Crucially, institutional inertia is not an option. Should parties fail to address the need for institutional reform, commentators may well be right to question whether the Assembly is worth restoring.

The decision of the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin to once again share power in Northern Ireland has ended a three‐year hiatus in the region’s devolved government. The deal which resurrects the devolved institutions—New Decade, New Approach—is not short of ambition. It introduces significant institutional reforms which place the institutions on a more sustainable footing and limit the potential for abuse of the Assembly’s infamous Petition of Concern. Nettles have been grasped on issues to do with language, culture, and identity that have long vexed political parties in Northern Ireland. Tucked away in the deal’s appendices are commitments to implement outstanding pledges made in previous agreements, plus ambitious plans for the new Northern Ireland Executive. However, as parties in the region were quick to discover, aspects of this deal are easier said than done. This article considers what New Decade, New Approach promises and, if fully implemented, what its implications are for politics and governance in Northern Ireland.

With echoes of the dividing lines of the United Kingdom's 2016 referendum, a majority of voters in Northern Ireland supported pro-Remain candidates in the 2019 European Parliament election. However, whereas the results in many parts of the UK reflected a highly polarised electorate, voters in Northern Ireland appeared more receptive to compromise: a majority of their newly elected MEPs expressed support for the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by the UK government with the EU-the only constituency in the UK where this was the case. The comfortable re-election of Diane Dodds and Martina Anderson affirmed the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin as the dominant unionist and nationalist parties respectively. However, a surge in support for the Alliance Party, which saw Naomi Long win a seat at the expense of the Ulster Unionist Party, marked a notable shift towards the ethno-national centre-ground: one in five first preference votes went to a candidate aligned with neither nationalism nor unionism. This report contextualises the election campaign and considers the implications of the results.

No abstract

We map the current state of parliamentary and legislative studies through a survey of 218 scholars and a bibliometric analysis of 25 years of publications in three prominent sub-field journals. We identify two groupings of researchers, a quantitative methods, rational choice-favouring grouping and a qualitative methods, interpretivism-favouring grouping with a UK focus. Upon closer examination, these groupings share similar views about the challenges and future of the sub-discipline. While the sub-discipline is becoming more diverse and international, US-focused literature remains dominant and distinct from UK-focused literature, although there are emerging sub-literatures which are well placed to link them together.