UK Constitution Essays

Evaluating Codification

Arguments for remaining UNCODIFIED	Counter – Argument for becoming CODIFIED	Mini – conclusion
Flexibility, the constitution is able to adapt to a changing world without major upheavals. The Uncodified constitution is therefore ‘organic’ and deeply rooted into society and can change according to society, automatically. Parliament can easily pass a new Act and simply agree to an unwritten convention in response to social and political change. Example: after the 7/7 bombings people were much more conscious on terrorist threats so parliament could effectively increase the power of the police force to ensure the protection of the people against future terrorist threats which did not require any large complex measures.	Although society is changing, many British citizens do not understand the concept of a constitution as a written ‘British constitution’ doesn’t actually exist.The creation of a codified constitution would enforce public awareness. Society understanding their rights and being able to understand how government works will eventually cure the problem of political ignorance and apathy.	Therefore, remaining Uncodified will allow changes to occur over time however, the public could potentially be none the wiser, as many cannot understand the conceptual idea of an unwritten constitution. It could however be argued that the decisions made are by elected individuals who understand and are more superior in their knowledge about making decisions.
Executive power, constitutional safeguards are weak / absent in Britain and therefore government can be more powerful. This means that government can deal with more problems without inhibitions.	Governmental power is excessive in Britain – insufficient controls on what government does. It threatens individual rights, the position of minorities and the public opinion influence. A clear, codified constitution would reassert the greater executive power. Parliament needs codified powers to enable it to control government on behalf of the people.Prevents an elective dictatorship.	British constitution is not entrenched and governmental power is at large. The absence of safeguards allows decisions to be made according to situations. However, there is no containment of Governmental power which enables them to reform the constitution beyond recognition in a short time period.
Conservative pragmatism, the Uncodified constitution has served Britain for centuries without revolutions or political unrest. Conservative ideology of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Attempts towards a codified constitution pens the possibility of Gridlock as it identifies the power of institutions.	The ECHR through the Human Rights Act, 1998 can still be overridden by Parliament as it remains sovereign and no constitutional legislation can remove sovereignty. Becoming codified would mean that Parliament could not pass any legislation that offended human rights protection.	The current coalition government has changed the relationships in government. The power of the executive has weakened whilst the power of parliament over government has strengthened. The UK constitution was even able to withstand the election where no party gained a majority. Reform is an issue of the future.
Politicising the courts and judiciability, it would involve the courts/Supreme Court. Conflict over: exact powers of government, the nature of rights, EU, relations with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would make the constitution judiciable.	Judges are not elected and are not accountable. Codification would define their powers and entrench citizens’ rights. Example: whether or not freedom of press should take precedence over the need for personal privacy, some argued for the conflict to be resolved by the elected Parliament. Phone hacking…	An unwritten constitution is therefore preferred as judges cannot be held accountable if the constitution was codified and delegated exact powers to various institutions. Parliament remains sovereign so codifying the constitution would make it judiciable and would deem judges higher authority over the legislature.

'The UK Constitution is no longer fit for purpose.' Discuss

For	Evaluation
Devolution – occurred without consideration of the long term issues that may arise; potentially leading to the break-up of the UK because of the lack of defined powers. With the proposed Devo-max for Scotland and Devolution to local cities by the new government, how will this be maintained and protected in the future.	Shows the strengths of the constitution, its ability to adapt to the current political circumstance by decentralising power and allowing for greater representation.
Excessive Executive Powers – Thatcher and Blair have both shown how powerful a PM can be, allowing them to reshape society beyond recognition. Cameron potentially could do so and has demonstrated this at the start of his government going forward with plans to reform relationships with the EU without government ministers or parliaments authority.	Executive can be controlled by committees and backbench MPs whom have become more powerful, showing parliamentary sovereignty in action. Backbench MPs have also experienced a significant increase in powers through the introduction of backbench business committees.
Electoral System – FPTP failed to produce a majority government, clearly an anachronism. Also produces too many wasted votes. After the 2015 general elections where SNP won just over 1 million votes but over 50 seats whilst UKIP won over 4 million votes but only one seat, the call for electoral reform is back.	Electoral reform was proposed and the people said no. FPTP is entrenched in the UK and has worked for a long time now. The coalition government of 2010 was clearly an anomaly as the last election produced a majority government.
Human Rights – no entrenchment of rights, open to abuse by government and misinterpretation to “protect criminals”. Potential for the rights to be removed by the new government and a new set of rights created by MPs who are potentially inexperienced in the field of law and order.	HR Act has protected security of people, the freedom of the media and allowed for an effective independent judiciary to operate. HR act has provided a great deal of power to the judiciary to protect the rights of minorities which it has done.
Codification – keeping in line with modern democracies. Allowing for a constitution that entrenches laws. With the major proposed reforms by the new government, the UK may be better off having a clear defining of its political processes and distribution of powers under a codified constitution.	Too many constraints, government works well now and the people don’t care.

'The location of sovereignty has changed in recent years' Discuss

For (Loss of Sovereignty)	Evaluation
EU – the EU controls a great deal of legislative power, limiting the power of government over domestic affairs (immigration and workers’ rights) & influence laws.	Parliament is Omnicom-potent, sovereignty constitutionally remains within parliament; they can leave at any point.
Increasing Executive Power – Prime Ministers now claim to have a personal mandate (political sovereignty) from the electoral. This has made the PM’s more much more elastic and therefore overpowering over Parliament. Most notably Blair and Thatcher.	Gordon Brown and Cameron demonstrate that this ebbs and flows, less and less with time; PM lacks an authority and control so has to work through Parliament to get things down. Backbench Business Committees have limited PM.
Referendums have become common practice before a constitutional amendment. This has given political sovereignty to the public. EU reform out of the current Governments hand.	Referendum results are not binding on parliament. Prime Ministers can reject a result if they are subject to manipulation or the turnouts are low.
Devolution – a great deal of political power has been lost. Devolution had led to unanticipated issues such as the possible break-up of the UK. Manchester’s devolved financial powers and proposed devo-max to Scotland.	Power is devolved but not sovereignty. Parliament can reclaim the devolved powers at any point.
Human Rights Act – strengthened the power of the people and effectively the judiciary. The judiciary has been given a constitutional power to protect citizen’s rights against government.	Parliament can opt out of the human rights act at any point (despite this being politically unpopular). Contempt within courts is also likely.

Constitutional Reform since 2010

Reforms
Fixed Term Parliaments – reinforcing the balance of power between the executive and Parliament, preventing a prime minister from holding elections at their political peak. Removing the Prime Ministers ability to recall Parliament, but it’s not entrenched.
Recall of MPs – a considered parliamentary reform which repeatedly fails to pass. A fundamental flaw within the system allowing for corrupt or unfaithful ministers to continue representing their constituents for long periods.
Devolution –the devolving of parliamentary powers to local regions & reduced power of central government. Aimed at improving representation and decentralising power from power. Limiting the power of central government and leading to the potential break-up of the UK showing a weak Prime Minister.
Elected Police Commissioners
E-Petitions – aimed at improving democracy. E-petitions that gain above 100,000 signatures have to be debated in parliament. Allowing the public to raise issues of concern that are binding on parliament’s deliberation if sufficient signatures are collected. There is no guarantee that it will impact legislation, heavily dependent on the time and attention it gets in debates.
Select Committees – strengthening the power of select committees, leaders are voted on by parliament. No decision is binding on parliament and governments tend to give a large amount of work and rush the process
Directly Elected Mayors – decentralisation of power and increasing representation.
Backbench Committees – Committees direct the way debates are held, deal with cross party issues and determine the agenda. Giving MPs control over 20 parliamentary days to debate issues. Again, there is no guarantee that it will impact legislation, heavily dependent on the time and attention it gets in debates.

Devolution

Benefits of Devolution	Evaluation
Homogenous – not all groups in the UK have the same lifestyle and can live by the same laws. Devolution allows them to govern themselves to their own means.	Leading to the potential break-up of the UK. Separation of powers conflicts with the idea of a united kingdom. Divided kingdom?
Representation – allowing for Government to directly represent the people rather than English MPs voting on Scottish issues.	Not gone far enough because there are no devolved powers for England and no English parliament.
Decentralisation – limiting parliaments (more the executives) ability to control the actions of these regions from London, for London.	Powers can be recalled at any point. Not gone far enough because there is no clear distribution of political power.
Participation – infused those in Scotland therefore encouraging greater participation and greater turn outs.	An extremely expensive measure which is likely to only expand over time.