“Evaluate the view that the use of convention weakens the UK Constitution”
LoA:
Definitions: conventions = accepted practices that have no force of law, constitution =
written set of rules that determine the relationship between Parliament and the public
Criteria:
Para 1 - yes
Unentrenched
No consequence if it doesn’t happen
Merely an 'expectation'
Para 2 - no
Some successes
Salisbury convention is efficient
Convention to vote on war before it is initiated enhances legitimacy of actions (Iraq
war 2003 Blair)
“Evaluate the view that all sources of the UK Constitution are equally important"
LoA: no
Criteria: conventions and authoritative works are significantly less important than statute
law in particular - statute law shapes the government agenda and is entrenched, whereas
conventions are unclear and merely unenforceable 'expectations' and authoritative works
offer no authority, they merely explain rules
Definitions: list the sources of the constitution, constitution
Para 1 - no - some aspects are less important (conventions, common law, and
authoritative works)
Conventions are far weaker than other sources of the constitution
Conventions aren't entrenched and are more of an 'expectation' than a legitimate
source of authority
Often there is nothing to hold them to account and there may be no consequence if
they aren't followed
They are not officially 'made' in a recognised way so it is often unclear what actually
is a convention
e.g. the convention that Parliament gives its permission before military action was
established was officially recognised in 2011, and had been clearly evidenced in 2003
when Blair put the Iraq war to debate and a Parliamentary vote, however followed a
long history of inconsistency (e.g. vote over Suez in 1956, but 7 statements and only
one vote on the Gulf War in the '90s). This convention has since been 'violated' in
2018 for air strikes in Syria, though Parliament was in recess.
e.g. PM Sir Anthony Eden didn't appoint his top choice to be foreign secretary on the
account that he thought it was a convention not to appoint foreign secretaries from
the HoL but then 5 years later Macmillan did, followed by Thatcher in 1979 - not
, obvious what is and is not a convention and no consequence for violating this
supposed convention.
Common law can also be seen as a bit weaker - based on precedent which is also
unwritten and allows unelected judges to manipulate law to suit their desires as they
are 'politicians in robes'. e.g. ???
The least significant source of the constitution is sources of authority which have no
authority whatsoever, they simply re-state rules and conventions that exist
elsewhere and explain them, like a textbook, rather than enforce anything - e.g.
'Parliamentary Practice' is updated with explanations of rules (link to how
conventions and rules change regularly and the inconsistency of an uncodified
constitution)
BUT: convention can be seen as strong and incredibly useful in some respects - Salisbury
convention enables the prevention of backlog and secures the efficient running of a
government, and there is a convention that the HoL forces the HoC to be dissolved if it
exceeds the 5 year limit. There would, in most cases, be political and public uproar if some
of these were violated. Common law is very important in many situations, and often
circumstances are so complicated that basing decisions on one's own interpretation of law
and precedent is the only way to make a decision (Lee vs Ashers?)
COUNTER: …
Para 2 - no - some aspects are more important (statute law and treaties)
Statute law is law made by Parliament
It is passed by a simple majority - often if a government possesses a majority then
they are able to pass almost anything due to the use of whips and collective
ministerial responsibility
e.g. Blair didn't face a defeat in the HoC until 2005.
Statute law is binding - HRA 1998 has led to the SC declaring many action or laws
incompatible with human rights
Common law is often cemented as statute law (e.g. habeas corpus made into statute
law in 1689, Plenty of statutes replace bits of common law with a statutory
restatement. The Companies Act 2006 did this for directors’ duties, for example.
Other statutes simply abolish parts of judge-made law, such as particular common
law offences or defences)
Statute law shapes the parliamentary agenda - devolution bills for example
ECHR was a treaty - entrenched in statute law through the HRA 1998
BUT: statute law can be reversed by future governments as it remains unentrenched and
due to Parliamentary Sovereignty (e.g. 2019 Early Parliamentary General Election Act passed
in order to bypass the FTPA and trigger the 2019 election early), some elements of the other
sources are entrenched through statute law (common law, treaties), many treaties have
lost their significance since leaving the EU
COUNTER: …
“Evaluate the view that since leaving the EU, the UK Constitution is stronger”
LoA: yes
Criteria: legal sovereignty and economic sovereignty restored…
Definitions: EU, constitution
LoA:
Definitions: conventions = accepted practices that have no force of law, constitution =
written set of rules that determine the relationship between Parliament and the public
Criteria:
Para 1 - yes
Unentrenched
No consequence if it doesn’t happen
Merely an 'expectation'
Para 2 - no
Some successes
Salisbury convention is efficient
Convention to vote on war before it is initiated enhances legitimacy of actions (Iraq
war 2003 Blair)
“Evaluate the view that all sources of the UK Constitution are equally important"
LoA: no
Criteria: conventions and authoritative works are significantly less important than statute
law in particular - statute law shapes the government agenda and is entrenched, whereas
conventions are unclear and merely unenforceable 'expectations' and authoritative works
offer no authority, they merely explain rules
Definitions: list the sources of the constitution, constitution
Para 1 - no - some aspects are less important (conventions, common law, and
authoritative works)
Conventions are far weaker than other sources of the constitution
Conventions aren't entrenched and are more of an 'expectation' than a legitimate
source of authority
Often there is nothing to hold them to account and there may be no consequence if
they aren't followed
They are not officially 'made' in a recognised way so it is often unclear what actually
is a convention
e.g. the convention that Parliament gives its permission before military action was
established was officially recognised in 2011, and had been clearly evidenced in 2003
when Blair put the Iraq war to debate and a Parliamentary vote, however followed a
long history of inconsistency (e.g. vote over Suez in 1956, but 7 statements and only
one vote on the Gulf War in the '90s). This convention has since been 'violated' in
2018 for air strikes in Syria, though Parliament was in recess.
e.g. PM Sir Anthony Eden didn't appoint his top choice to be foreign secretary on the
account that he thought it was a convention not to appoint foreign secretaries from
the HoL but then 5 years later Macmillan did, followed by Thatcher in 1979 - not
, obvious what is and is not a convention and no consequence for violating this
supposed convention.
Common law can also be seen as a bit weaker - based on precedent which is also
unwritten and allows unelected judges to manipulate law to suit their desires as they
are 'politicians in robes'. e.g. ???
The least significant source of the constitution is sources of authority which have no
authority whatsoever, they simply re-state rules and conventions that exist
elsewhere and explain them, like a textbook, rather than enforce anything - e.g.
'Parliamentary Practice' is updated with explanations of rules (link to how
conventions and rules change regularly and the inconsistency of an uncodified
constitution)
BUT: convention can be seen as strong and incredibly useful in some respects - Salisbury
convention enables the prevention of backlog and secures the efficient running of a
government, and there is a convention that the HoL forces the HoC to be dissolved if it
exceeds the 5 year limit. There would, in most cases, be political and public uproar if some
of these were violated. Common law is very important in many situations, and often
circumstances are so complicated that basing decisions on one's own interpretation of law
and precedent is the only way to make a decision (Lee vs Ashers?)
COUNTER: …
Para 2 - no - some aspects are more important (statute law and treaties)
Statute law is law made by Parliament
It is passed by a simple majority - often if a government possesses a majority then
they are able to pass almost anything due to the use of whips and collective
ministerial responsibility
e.g. Blair didn't face a defeat in the HoC until 2005.
Statute law is binding - HRA 1998 has led to the SC declaring many action or laws
incompatible with human rights
Common law is often cemented as statute law (e.g. habeas corpus made into statute
law in 1689, Plenty of statutes replace bits of common law with a statutory
restatement. The Companies Act 2006 did this for directors’ duties, for example.
Other statutes simply abolish parts of judge-made law, such as particular common
law offences or defences)
Statute law shapes the parliamentary agenda - devolution bills for example
ECHR was a treaty - entrenched in statute law through the HRA 1998
BUT: statute law can be reversed by future governments as it remains unentrenched and
due to Parliamentary Sovereignty (e.g. 2019 Early Parliamentary General Election Act passed
in order to bypass the FTPA and trigger the 2019 election early), some elements of the other
sources are entrenched through statute law (common law, treaties), many treaties have
lost their significance since leaving the EU
COUNTER: …
“Evaluate the view that since leaving the EU, the UK Constitution is stronger”
LoA: yes
Criteria: legal sovereignty and economic sovereignty restored…
Definitions: EU, constitution
