Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK's constitutional
arrangements
Yes because of the Human Rights Act 1998 No because it seemed that wealthy
which incorporated the European individuals, who can afford to take legal
Convention on Human rights into law. action had an fair advantage. Such as 08
Rights inc right to life could now be the high court awarded Max Mosley
defended in UK courts, for example Abu damages when News of the World
Qatada who was a extremist preacher who published a story about his sex life, argued
fought deportation to Jordan cuz he might breached his privacy. Those lower class
be tried using evidence obtained under cannot go to court to defend their rights, can
torture, a breach of the HRA. furthermore, it lead to a breach in rights against them.
can be used to declare Acts of Parliament
incompatible with the Convention. In 2004
the Law Lords ruled 8-1 against the
government’s indefinite detention of terrorist
suspects in prisons under the Anti-
Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001.
Shows the effectiveness because it can
stop govt from acting tyrannical which was
previously unable to do.
Yes the common law and other statutes No because parliament is legally sovereign,
passed by Parliament also play an so can sign pass an act of parliament that
important role in protecting individual rights could overturn court decision potentially
by imposing important legal constraints violating human rights. For example, in 04
upon public authorities. For example, the when law lords ruled that indefinite
Equality Act 2010 prevents public detention was discriminatory, govt passed a
authorities discriminating on the basis of law introducing system enabling suspects to
race, sex, disability and other grounds of be closely monitored (later modified to
equal treatment. This is good because it TPIM), could arguably violate right to
explicitly lays out citizens rights like a bill of privacy. Can lead to tyranny. diluting rights
rights which educates the public against protection
potential discrimination.
Yes because of the uncodified constitution No because it is vulnerable to political
which allows new rights to be passed, due attack, with Conservative calls replacement
to its unentrenched nature, which began by a ‘British Bill of Rights’, which would
with the Magna Carta 1215 which stated reduce the influence of Strasbourg on UK
that no one should be deprived of liberty or law and limit the existing scope of judicial
property w/out due process of law. protection of rights in areas such as national
Important because it allowed acts like the security and immigration control. This is bad
Equality Act to pass, meaning that the UK because it can lead to cases where
does protect rights well as they can pass defendants face the government and be
new rights as we progress with society, disadvantaged favouring the govt.
unlike a codified constitution like USA
where it would be harder to remove some
Evaluate the extent to which the UK Parliament remains effectively sovereign
● legal sovereignty has never been seriously challenged and is more significant than
political sovereignty, since it cannot be given away by Parliament. (AO2), therefore
, Parliament clearly retains sole sovereignty and will continue to do so, as there is no
serious threat (AO3)
● the EU referendum emphasises this point, since it was called by Parliament and
could in theory be overruled by Parliament (AO2), therefore this is a clear
demonstration in practice that sovereignty power rests with Parliament rather than
with the people (AO3)
● the specific and limited nature of all devolution of power, as well as its reversibility,
sets a clearly-defined limit to any loss of sovereignty (AO2), clearly, therefore,
Parliament has retained its power despite regional devolution (AO3)
● the intention of retaining the unitary nature of the UK constitution leads to the
conclusion that it emphasises Parliament’s ultimate sovereignty (AO2), as there is
little support for reform of this aspect or a real threat to removing Parliament’s
sovereignty, which supports the case that it has retained it (AO3).
HOWEVER
● the difficulties posed by Britain’s membership of the EU, and its potential departure,
showcase the limitations on Parliament’s political sovereignty. (AO2), thus it can be
concluded that Parliamentary sovereignty can be threatened politically and that
external factors can affect it considerably (AO3)
● devolution gives away large and significant areas of law making, and attempting to
exercise sovereignty by reclaiming these powers would cause huge political
controversy (AO2), therefore this is evidence that sovereignty can be lost politically to
other institutions and that it does not lie solely with Parliament in the UK (AO3)
● the political difficulty of resisting the pressure of a declaration of incompatibility of the
Supreme Court is a significant restriction on Parliament’s ability to exercise
sovereignty in practice (AO2), so this shows that their sovereignty can be restricted
and that there are other institutions, such as the judiciary, that can exercise power
over Parliament (AO3)
● the political difficulty of Parliament overruling a referendum vote reduces its sole
sovereignty, although arguably the EU referendum result is leading to this idea being
challenged (AO2), this confirms the view that Parliament does not have sole
sovereignty, as it has not overruled the referendum results, and that the people have
effectively exercised sovereignty on this issue (AO3).
Evaluate the argument that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than
remaining with an uncodified constitution
, yes because it will protect rights much On the other hand, we should remain
better than an uncodified constitution. uncodified because rights are effectively
Individual liberty would be more securely protected by an uncodified constitution. This
protected by a cc cuz it will define the is because the Human Right Act 1998 gave
relationship between the citizens and the UK justices power to defend individual
states. For example, the Human rights Act rights in the UK, such as Abu Qatada. This
98 wouldn’t be under threat by allows rights to be defended just as it would
conservatives by a british bill of rights, and with a codified constitution, and the
the 2010 equality act could be entrenched flexibility of it allows new rights to be
and act like a bill of rights which be will removed or added to suit the ever changing
safeguarded. This will provide and society we live in. unlike the US, where
educative function and will allow citizens the rights like the 2nd amendment are arguably
opportunity to clearly learn their rights which not fit for purpose, an uncodified
can protect them from a possible over constitution allows us to easily change it
powerful govt, or institution, something which increases the speed and wouldn't
liberals like john stuart mill hope for. the lead to radical, political and social
Human Rights Act of 1998 which can be inequalities being enshrined.
overturned by Parliament as it is sovereign.
Secondly, an codified constitution would However, introducing this would reduce the
restrain executive and legislative power as flexibility of government. This would reduce
the location of sovereign authority is the impact they have on society, this will
identified. With a codified constitution, the allows laws and regulations to be quickly
constitution would be sovereign, which will introduced to the UK, provides flexibility
clearly define the relationship between upon an uncodified constitution. For
government branches, this will allow limited example, following the Dunblane massacre
government which is something that an of 1996, John Major was quickly able to ban
uncodified constitution cannot provide in a handguns with the Firearms (Amendment)
parliamentary system where the executive Act of 1997. This flexibility will clearly
dominates government especially with a provides evidence that governments can
party majority. This would be favoured by quickly act to times of national crisis,
the Liberal Democrats as they are a centrist whereas a codified constitution laws will
party that believes in sharing and take much longer to pass which could leave
distributing power fairly amongst the us with outdated laws.
branches of government. This will allow
government to
Yes because it can provide the people of Finally, we should remain with a codified
the state something that they can identify. constitution because it has been organically
There is, therefore an argument for creating developed with UK history and has been
a real constitution so that public awareness proved fit for purpose. The UK has never
and support can grow. If people know their fought in a civil war, as such.‘If it ain’t broke
rights and understand better how don’t fix it.’ This applies to the current
government works, it is suggested, this constitution as it has worked for centuries.
might cure the problem of political Introducing a codified constitution would be
ignorance and apathy that prevails today. unnecessary as the current constitution
works and there is no need to make such
drastic changes to the UK’s political system.
It has allowed UK politics to grow in terms
of devolution in Scotland, NI and Wales and
develop further with acts such as the 2012
scotland act. People here can argue that
there are bigger issue such as Brexit. Links
arrangements
Yes because of the Human Rights Act 1998 No because it seemed that wealthy
which incorporated the European individuals, who can afford to take legal
Convention on Human rights into law. action had an fair advantage. Such as 08
Rights inc right to life could now be the high court awarded Max Mosley
defended in UK courts, for example Abu damages when News of the World
Qatada who was a extremist preacher who published a story about his sex life, argued
fought deportation to Jordan cuz he might breached his privacy. Those lower class
be tried using evidence obtained under cannot go to court to defend their rights, can
torture, a breach of the HRA. furthermore, it lead to a breach in rights against them.
can be used to declare Acts of Parliament
incompatible with the Convention. In 2004
the Law Lords ruled 8-1 against the
government’s indefinite detention of terrorist
suspects in prisons under the Anti-
Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001.
Shows the effectiveness because it can
stop govt from acting tyrannical which was
previously unable to do.
Yes the common law and other statutes No because parliament is legally sovereign,
passed by Parliament also play an so can sign pass an act of parliament that
important role in protecting individual rights could overturn court decision potentially
by imposing important legal constraints violating human rights. For example, in 04
upon public authorities. For example, the when law lords ruled that indefinite
Equality Act 2010 prevents public detention was discriminatory, govt passed a
authorities discriminating on the basis of law introducing system enabling suspects to
race, sex, disability and other grounds of be closely monitored (later modified to
equal treatment. This is good because it TPIM), could arguably violate right to
explicitly lays out citizens rights like a bill of privacy. Can lead to tyranny. diluting rights
rights which educates the public against protection
potential discrimination.
Yes because of the uncodified constitution No because it is vulnerable to political
which allows new rights to be passed, due attack, with Conservative calls replacement
to its unentrenched nature, which began by a ‘British Bill of Rights’, which would
with the Magna Carta 1215 which stated reduce the influence of Strasbourg on UK
that no one should be deprived of liberty or law and limit the existing scope of judicial
property w/out due process of law. protection of rights in areas such as national
Important because it allowed acts like the security and immigration control. This is bad
Equality Act to pass, meaning that the UK because it can lead to cases where
does protect rights well as they can pass defendants face the government and be
new rights as we progress with society, disadvantaged favouring the govt.
unlike a codified constitution like USA
where it would be harder to remove some
Evaluate the extent to which the UK Parliament remains effectively sovereign
● legal sovereignty has never been seriously challenged and is more significant than
political sovereignty, since it cannot be given away by Parliament. (AO2), therefore
, Parliament clearly retains sole sovereignty and will continue to do so, as there is no
serious threat (AO3)
● the EU referendum emphasises this point, since it was called by Parliament and
could in theory be overruled by Parliament (AO2), therefore this is a clear
demonstration in practice that sovereignty power rests with Parliament rather than
with the people (AO3)
● the specific and limited nature of all devolution of power, as well as its reversibility,
sets a clearly-defined limit to any loss of sovereignty (AO2), clearly, therefore,
Parliament has retained its power despite regional devolution (AO3)
● the intention of retaining the unitary nature of the UK constitution leads to the
conclusion that it emphasises Parliament’s ultimate sovereignty (AO2), as there is
little support for reform of this aspect or a real threat to removing Parliament’s
sovereignty, which supports the case that it has retained it (AO3).
HOWEVER
● the difficulties posed by Britain’s membership of the EU, and its potential departure,
showcase the limitations on Parliament’s political sovereignty. (AO2), thus it can be
concluded that Parliamentary sovereignty can be threatened politically and that
external factors can affect it considerably (AO3)
● devolution gives away large and significant areas of law making, and attempting to
exercise sovereignty by reclaiming these powers would cause huge political
controversy (AO2), therefore this is evidence that sovereignty can be lost politically to
other institutions and that it does not lie solely with Parliament in the UK (AO3)
● the political difficulty of resisting the pressure of a declaration of incompatibility of the
Supreme Court is a significant restriction on Parliament’s ability to exercise
sovereignty in practice (AO2), so this shows that their sovereignty can be restricted
and that there are other institutions, such as the judiciary, that can exercise power
over Parliament (AO3)
● the political difficulty of Parliament overruling a referendum vote reduces its sole
sovereignty, although arguably the EU referendum result is leading to this idea being
challenged (AO2), this confirms the view that Parliament does not have sole
sovereignty, as it has not overruled the referendum results, and that the people have
effectively exercised sovereignty on this issue (AO3).
Evaluate the argument that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than
remaining with an uncodified constitution
, yes because it will protect rights much On the other hand, we should remain
better than an uncodified constitution. uncodified because rights are effectively
Individual liberty would be more securely protected by an uncodified constitution. This
protected by a cc cuz it will define the is because the Human Right Act 1998 gave
relationship between the citizens and the UK justices power to defend individual
states. For example, the Human rights Act rights in the UK, such as Abu Qatada. This
98 wouldn’t be under threat by allows rights to be defended just as it would
conservatives by a british bill of rights, and with a codified constitution, and the
the 2010 equality act could be entrenched flexibility of it allows new rights to be
and act like a bill of rights which be will removed or added to suit the ever changing
safeguarded. This will provide and society we live in. unlike the US, where
educative function and will allow citizens the rights like the 2nd amendment are arguably
opportunity to clearly learn their rights which not fit for purpose, an uncodified
can protect them from a possible over constitution allows us to easily change it
powerful govt, or institution, something which increases the speed and wouldn't
liberals like john stuart mill hope for. the lead to radical, political and social
Human Rights Act of 1998 which can be inequalities being enshrined.
overturned by Parliament as it is sovereign.
Secondly, an codified constitution would However, introducing this would reduce the
restrain executive and legislative power as flexibility of government. This would reduce
the location of sovereign authority is the impact they have on society, this will
identified. With a codified constitution, the allows laws and regulations to be quickly
constitution would be sovereign, which will introduced to the UK, provides flexibility
clearly define the relationship between upon an uncodified constitution. For
government branches, this will allow limited example, following the Dunblane massacre
government which is something that an of 1996, John Major was quickly able to ban
uncodified constitution cannot provide in a handguns with the Firearms (Amendment)
parliamentary system where the executive Act of 1997. This flexibility will clearly
dominates government especially with a provides evidence that governments can
party majority. This would be favoured by quickly act to times of national crisis,
the Liberal Democrats as they are a centrist whereas a codified constitution laws will
party that believes in sharing and take much longer to pass which could leave
distributing power fairly amongst the us with outdated laws.
branches of government. This will allow
government to
Yes because it can provide the people of Finally, we should remain with a codified
the state something that they can identify. constitution because it has been organically
There is, therefore an argument for creating developed with UK history and has been
a real constitution so that public awareness proved fit for purpose. The UK has never
and support can grow. If people know their fought in a civil war, as such.‘If it ain’t broke
rights and understand better how don’t fix it.’ This applies to the current
government works, it is suggested, this constitution as it has worked for centuries.
might cure the problem of political Introducing a codified constitution would be
ignorance and apathy that prevails today. unnecessary as the current constitution
works and there is no need to make such
drastic changes to the UK’s political system.
It has allowed UK politics to grow in terms
of devolution in Scotland, NI and Wales and
develop further with acts such as the 2012
scotland act. People here can argue that
there are bigger issue such as Brexit. Links
