Constitution essay plans
Do we need a codified constitution in UK
1. No- flexibility
• Flexibility of our uncodified constitution is an important aspect
• Easy to change when necessary
• Allowed our constitution to evolve to change to reflect society’s needs at a
given time, only because it is uncodified
• For example in response to public pressure in 1997- devolution
• Flexibility to respond to crisis e.g 1996 dunblane massacre- hand gun ban
• This means that it is important we keep our uncodified because we can
easily change it to reflect our needs at different time periods without
having to go through hard amendment processes like in USA- which cannot
adequately amend itself when in need to because it is so hard.
• Can better reflect needs- more democratic
However- changes made to easily
• Parliament can easily change the constitution- as they are sovereign with a
simple majority vote, unlike USA-tough amendment process
• e.g control orders or stop and search
• This means that fundamental principles of the constitution can be taken
away by parliament due to the ease of changing the constitution and this
can therefore make tyrannical changes which damage democracy and
keep a government in power-
• Codified would prevent this as changes cannot be made so easily
• However convention to have referendum on law change
2. HRA already strengthened our rights
• An argument for codifying it is clear, protected, entrenched rights, but the
HRA 1998 allows for the supreme court to declare laws incompatible with
the HRA
,• Therefore laws cannot be made which damage our rights, because this act
already protects it, without codifying the constitution
• It also ensures that ministers must show how their law is compatible with
the act
• Although it isn’t entrenched, the act is doing the job and is being treated
as if it was entrenched law- and people don’t break this.
• Accountable to the people
• Always had rights protected by law.
However- rights protected better in codified
• The act isn’t entrenched and could be changed by parliament
• Our supreme court cannot strike down laws, as parliament is sovereign
• This means that parliament can easily change our rights and hinder them
with a simple majority
• These rights are not entrenched and we could therefore be subject easily
to tyranny
• In addition by codifying, many people could learn about our rights and how
government works like in USA
• This means it would be even harder for parliament to take away rights, if
more people knew about what they were trying to take away.
3. Constitution has served the test of time- preserve status quo
and PMT sovereignty
• No crisis or real big demand to codify our constitution, therefore no point
in doing so
• If there is no demand to codify from the people, then it could be
considered undemocratic to codify
• No consensus on what a codified constitution would be and what values
and principles would be in it
• Would politicise the judges
,• Not causing any crisis because its uncodified and so long that rights are
being protected by the act and parliament is kept in check from tyranny-
no change
However
• There have been questions to our core principles after the recent
amendments to the constitution such as sovereignty in parliament and
unitary state
• Therefore a codified constitution would clearly set out our values and what
we stand for in the UK- and how our government works
• It could also answer west Lothian question
• Could set out clearly where the power lies, between separate branches-
and how each branch can check another.
Have constitutional reforms gone far enough
House of lords
• Upper chamber more based on experience and merit- scrutiny
• Holds government to account- 400 defeats of Blair government/7 in
commons
• No consensus on what to change it to- elected body the same as
commons?
Reform
• 92 hp26 bishops unaddressed
• Unelected- undemocratic- cannot represent us, unaccountable to us-
unfitting
• Weak powers to delay or check the government- reform to make it
stronger body
• Always meant to be the first of two stages of reform- so need to further
reform
Human rights
• ECHR part of statute law- strengthening the rights- challenge in UK courts
, • Clear rights they can defend, whereas before it was unclear
• Ministers must say how their law is compatible with the act
• Now the supreme court can say which laws are incompatible with HRA
Reform
• British bill of rights- clearly entrenching rights
• Defining all of our rights such as right to family life
• Supreme Court is just as advisory body- reformed to let it strike down laws
that hinder our rights
• Has to take into account ECHR opinion
• Parliament can still make changes with a simple vote
Devolution
• 1998 devolution to NI, Wales, Scotland- decentralising power
• Most devolved bodies have income tax powers- strong power
• Scottish parliament is now a permanent feature of constitution- prevent
tyranny
• EVEL- good for England
• More democratic to have power closer to the people
Reform
• EVEL- doesn’t stop them from defeating bills only affect us e.g SNP trading
reforms
• Undermined other bodies when decisions affect them- but Westminster
makes them for them e.g with Brexit- no consent needed
How well are our rights protected
Rights protected, by parliament, judiciary, pressure groups
Para 1- not good at defending
Simple act of parliament can overturn any right
Not codified- cant be defended
Do we need a codified constitution in UK
1. No- flexibility
• Flexibility of our uncodified constitution is an important aspect
• Easy to change when necessary
• Allowed our constitution to evolve to change to reflect society’s needs at a
given time, only because it is uncodified
• For example in response to public pressure in 1997- devolution
• Flexibility to respond to crisis e.g 1996 dunblane massacre- hand gun ban
• This means that it is important we keep our uncodified because we can
easily change it to reflect our needs at different time periods without
having to go through hard amendment processes like in USA- which cannot
adequately amend itself when in need to because it is so hard.
• Can better reflect needs- more democratic
However- changes made to easily
• Parliament can easily change the constitution- as they are sovereign with a
simple majority vote, unlike USA-tough amendment process
• e.g control orders or stop and search
• This means that fundamental principles of the constitution can be taken
away by parliament due to the ease of changing the constitution and this
can therefore make tyrannical changes which damage democracy and
keep a government in power-
• Codified would prevent this as changes cannot be made so easily
• However convention to have referendum on law change
2. HRA already strengthened our rights
• An argument for codifying it is clear, protected, entrenched rights, but the
HRA 1998 allows for the supreme court to declare laws incompatible with
the HRA
,• Therefore laws cannot be made which damage our rights, because this act
already protects it, without codifying the constitution
• It also ensures that ministers must show how their law is compatible with
the act
• Although it isn’t entrenched, the act is doing the job and is being treated
as if it was entrenched law- and people don’t break this.
• Accountable to the people
• Always had rights protected by law.
However- rights protected better in codified
• The act isn’t entrenched and could be changed by parliament
• Our supreme court cannot strike down laws, as parliament is sovereign
• This means that parliament can easily change our rights and hinder them
with a simple majority
• These rights are not entrenched and we could therefore be subject easily
to tyranny
• In addition by codifying, many people could learn about our rights and how
government works like in USA
• This means it would be even harder for parliament to take away rights, if
more people knew about what they were trying to take away.
3. Constitution has served the test of time- preserve status quo
and PMT sovereignty
• No crisis or real big demand to codify our constitution, therefore no point
in doing so
• If there is no demand to codify from the people, then it could be
considered undemocratic to codify
• No consensus on what a codified constitution would be and what values
and principles would be in it
• Would politicise the judges
,• Not causing any crisis because its uncodified and so long that rights are
being protected by the act and parliament is kept in check from tyranny-
no change
However
• There have been questions to our core principles after the recent
amendments to the constitution such as sovereignty in parliament and
unitary state
• Therefore a codified constitution would clearly set out our values and what
we stand for in the UK- and how our government works
• It could also answer west Lothian question
• Could set out clearly where the power lies, between separate branches-
and how each branch can check another.
Have constitutional reforms gone far enough
House of lords
• Upper chamber more based on experience and merit- scrutiny
• Holds government to account- 400 defeats of Blair government/7 in
commons
• No consensus on what to change it to- elected body the same as
commons?
Reform
• 92 hp26 bishops unaddressed
• Unelected- undemocratic- cannot represent us, unaccountable to us-
unfitting
• Weak powers to delay or check the government- reform to make it
stronger body
• Always meant to be the first of two stages of reform- so need to further
reform
Human rights
• ECHR part of statute law- strengthening the rights- challenge in UK courts
, • Clear rights they can defend, whereas before it was unclear
• Ministers must say how their law is compatible with the act
• Now the supreme court can say which laws are incompatible with HRA
Reform
• British bill of rights- clearly entrenching rights
• Defining all of our rights such as right to family life
• Supreme Court is just as advisory body- reformed to let it strike down laws
that hinder our rights
• Has to take into account ECHR opinion
• Parliament can still make changes with a simple vote
Devolution
• 1998 devolution to NI, Wales, Scotland- decentralising power
• Most devolved bodies have income tax powers- strong power
• Scottish parliament is now a permanent feature of constitution- prevent
tyranny
• EVEL- good for England
• More democratic to have power closer to the people
Reform
• EVEL- doesn’t stop them from defeating bills only affect us e.g SNP trading
reforms
• Undermined other bodies when decisions affect them- but Westminster
makes them for them e.g with Brexit- no consent needed
How well are our rights protected
Rights protected, by parliament, judiciary, pressure groups
Para 1- not good at defending
Simple act of parliament can overturn any right
Not codified- cant be defended
