ARGUMENTS FOR CODIFIED UK CONSTITUTION
Lack of education about politics -> issue in UK, one of reasons behind
lack of participation in traditional politics (esp. voting in general
elections where turnout only 66%) according to the Power Inquiry 2006.
People don’t feel able / empowered / educated enough to take part.
Education about codified constitution would help to resolve this!
Lack of trust in politics politicians -> issue in UK, esp. since the 2009
Expenses Scandal -> MPs were highlighted as being unethical /
immoral / fraudsters! Leads to disillusionment & apathy in politics. This
might promote more respect and confidence in politicians again, and
help encourage political participation. Significance 5
Entrenchment -> makes it increasingly difficult to alter the constitution
making it much more rigid, which is necessary to ensure all policies and
legislation part of the constitution are ‘protected’ against the chance of
government trying to amend them for ill intentions.
Parliamentary sovereignty -> UK Parliament can make, change or end
any law with considerable ease. Through entrenchment this will no
longer be possible and the Parliament will have less powers.
Significance 4
An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a basic law or
constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more
difficult or impossible to pass, making such amendments inadmissible.
Overriding an entrenched clause may require a supermajority, a
referendum, or the consent of the minority party.
Currently statute law protects human rights -> Human Rights Act 1998
incorporated ECHR into UK statute law but it can be repealed by any
future parliaments. UK government can derogate from some Articles to
protect the public (demonstrated when government derogated from
Article 5, which gave individuals the right to liberty and security, in cases
of suspected terrorism).
Entrenched Bill of Rights -> Better protection of rights? Very difficult for
UK Parliament to repeal it or derogate from Articles. The Bill of Rights
may include fewer rights and liberties than the HRA 1998 currently does,
A constitutional court -> The judiciary so may not mean that rights are better protected! Government may still
would be able to rule that Parliament has be able to push boundaries on what is politically possible. Significance 4
acted unconstitutionally, and Parliament
will be forced to change its legislation or Greater clarity about the rights of citizens -> Citizens will better
political decisions made. Currently, understand their rights and responsibilities in society. It may also make
Parliament is NOT obliged to amend it easier to make rulings on whether one has infringed on another’s
incompatible statutes; they can ignore or human rights. This is because the judiciary would not have to interpret
suspend the part of the Act for a period of the law as much, since it is more clearly stated.
time that they have gone against. Clarity on the powers of government-> Greater checks and balances on
Direct challenge to parliamentary parliament as would be stated in the written authoritative constitution
sovereignty -> The judiciary acts as a check would lead to greater scrutiny on the government and political decision
on the UK legislature, ensuring that they making by the legislature and judiciary. This would ensure that they do
do not act beyond powers. not act ultra vires or make controversial policies. It would clearly state
Significance 4 the powers of each institution of state so that there is no uncertainty
on whether they are acting within their powers or pushing the
boundaries. Significance 2
TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE 19
Lack of education about politics -> issue in UK, one of reasons behind
lack of participation in traditional politics (esp. voting in general
elections where turnout only 66%) according to the Power Inquiry 2006.
People don’t feel able / empowered / educated enough to take part.
Education about codified constitution would help to resolve this!
Lack of trust in politics politicians -> issue in UK, esp. since the 2009
Expenses Scandal -> MPs were highlighted as being unethical /
immoral / fraudsters! Leads to disillusionment & apathy in politics. This
might promote more respect and confidence in politicians again, and
help encourage political participation. Significance 5
Entrenchment -> makes it increasingly difficult to alter the constitution
making it much more rigid, which is necessary to ensure all policies and
legislation part of the constitution are ‘protected’ against the chance of
government trying to amend them for ill intentions.
Parliamentary sovereignty -> UK Parliament can make, change or end
any law with considerable ease. Through entrenchment this will no
longer be possible and the Parliament will have less powers.
Significance 4
An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a basic law or
constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more
difficult or impossible to pass, making such amendments inadmissible.
Overriding an entrenched clause may require a supermajority, a
referendum, or the consent of the minority party.
Currently statute law protects human rights -> Human Rights Act 1998
incorporated ECHR into UK statute law but it can be repealed by any
future parliaments. UK government can derogate from some Articles to
protect the public (demonstrated when government derogated from
Article 5, which gave individuals the right to liberty and security, in cases
of suspected terrorism).
Entrenched Bill of Rights -> Better protection of rights? Very difficult for
UK Parliament to repeal it or derogate from Articles. The Bill of Rights
may include fewer rights and liberties than the HRA 1998 currently does,
A constitutional court -> The judiciary so may not mean that rights are better protected! Government may still
would be able to rule that Parliament has be able to push boundaries on what is politically possible. Significance 4
acted unconstitutionally, and Parliament
will be forced to change its legislation or Greater clarity about the rights of citizens -> Citizens will better
political decisions made. Currently, understand their rights and responsibilities in society. It may also make
Parliament is NOT obliged to amend it easier to make rulings on whether one has infringed on another’s
incompatible statutes; they can ignore or human rights. This is because the judiciary would not have to interpret
suspend the part of the Act for a period of the law as much, since it is more clearly stated.
time that they have gone against. Clarity on the powers of government-> Greater checks and balances on
Direct challenge to parliamentary parliament as would be stated in the written authoritative constitution
sovereignty -> The judiciary acts as a check would lead to greater scrutiny on the government and political decision
on the UK legislature, ensuring that they making by the legislature and judiciary. This would ensure that they do
do not act beyond powers. not act ultra vires or make controversial policies. It would clearly state
Significance 4 the powers of each institution of state so that there is no uncertainty
on whether they are acting within their powers or pushing the
boundaries. Significance 2
TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE 19
