Does the UK need a codified/written constitution?
Teacher recommended
?- Created by: Sophie
- Created on: 12-04-13 19:50
View mindmap
- Does the UK need a written/codified constitution?
- NO
- Traditional constitution known as the Westminster model - claims this is how it is supposed to operate,
- System has worked well for hundreds of years and provided liberty and stability. Reflects history and enduring values of British people.
- Provides for strong and effective government. Includes doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty with power centralised in cabinet.
- No widespread demand for or interest in change.
- Flexibility allows adjustments to meet new demands when required.
- Peoples rights have been protected and a written constitution does not guarantee these rights eg. US, Zimbabwe and Russia.
- Hard to devise constitution that pleases all.
- YES
- Nowhere can easily be seen as from so many sources. Remove uncertainty about specific roles eg. Monarch.
- Some say it is outdated, inefficient and undemocratic - most conventions dating back to pre-modern era with idea of hereditary power.
- Tendency for executive dominance eg. Blair removed session of Q time. It would constrain their power.
- No separation of powers - executive exercises great control over legislative process and local/subnational government.
- Would protect the independence of the judiciary.
- Would provide up-to-date statement of rights of people which is more relevant that European Convention.
- Key laws would be entrenched (i.e. firmly established and difficult to amend.)
- Easier for courts to interpret what is lawful behaviour and uphold constitution. Atm judicical review limited as no definite criteria for determing what is unconventional.
- Would set out clearer values and structures of the political system.
- Would prevent any constitutional crises eg. (hung parliament 2010 where no single party had majority.)
- NO
Comments
Report