Should the UK adopt a codified constitution
- Created by: wanjikar
- Created on: 28-05-23 16:32
View mindmap
- Should the UK adopt a codified constitution
- Yes
- Too flexible
- allows for too much change
- too much government power
- major legislation and constitutional principles can be changed by a single act of parliament
- allows for an elective dictatorship
- E.G., The Tory party had a majority so legislation concerning Brexit and Covid passed easily
- Allow for better separation of powers
- leads to a more democratic and accountable system
- After 2005, the executive and legislature are fused and the judiciary is independent
- the fusion of executive and legislature diminishes parliamentary scrutiny
- 2015- Tories won 35% of the vote but won 51% of seats in Parliament
- Conventions aren't entrenched
- essentially subjective as unclear conventions have no written source
- e.g., Cameron sent drone strikes to Syria in 2015 despite not consulting Parliament
- with codificiation, conventions could be enforced by the Supreme Court
- Too flexible
- No
- Flexibility is a strength of an uncodified constitution
- entrenched nature would cause rigidity
- E.G., The UK was able to respond quickly Covid due to legislation passed swiftly
- public opinion is a factor in forcing gov. to change policies if institutions themselves are weak
- The govt was able to devolve powers to England, Scotland, Wales as time goes
- A clear separation of powers leads to govt gridlock
- Congress often experiences gridlock
- There are other limits to government power
- opposition parties and vocal backbenchers
- select committees investigate the govt and hold them accountable
- Conventions work with the evolving nature of UK politics
- a codified constitution would allow the SC to use conventions
- key tenets of the law aren't entrenched and therefore subject to change.
- Flexibility is a strength of an uncodified constitution
- Yes
Comments
No comments have yet been made