Assess Whether The Case For A Written Constitution For The United Kingdom Is Now Compelling.

It is known to all that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.
What we
mean by written is it is not written down in a single document with the definition of the
powers of the government and the rights of the citizen. Instead, there are several sources of
the constitutional law which have been written along with the non-legal rules which
constructs the British Government. Compelling refers to the desire to demand or convince.
A written constitution is precisely and methodically written down which is incorporated into
a single document which contains all the rules related to the governmental power and an
unwritten constitution on the other hand is where there is no single set of documentation-
the documentation has not been accumulated. An unwritten constitution has to go through
a process to detect if it is certain before the rules are accumulated and given a descriptive
meaning. The constitution of the United Kingdom is not codified but the constitution has
been written down in many acts of parliament, conventions which have been documented
and court cases and it is known as statute law. The constitution of United Kingdom is
frequently described as partly written and entirely uncodified. The sources of the British
Constitution which are legal rules are Legislation which are the Acts of Parliament- statutes
and delegated legislation, judicial precedent, EU law- which is relevant under the ECA 1972,
Customary International law, The royal prerogative, ECHR law- relevant under HRA 1998.
The non-legal rule sources are constitutional conventions are a vital source of the
constitution as they support the constitutions existence by giving flexibility so that it can
evolve without formal changes to the legal structure of the constitution, Customs such as
the royal prerogative and the parliaments rules and customs, General and Political values
such as institutional morality, Rules of political parties and lastly authoritative work like
Dicey, Jennings, etc.
The relationship between the government and parliament have received criticism because
apparently there is not enough checks and balances between the legislature and the
executive since Acts of Parliament can be passed without the governments support.
Procedures that take place in the parliament give limited opportunities to non-ministers,
MPs and the members of the House of Lords to introduce Private Members Bill on topics
that are of personal interest to them which has resulted in only a few member bills
materialise into statutes. An unwritten system can only function if the three branches of
government, notably the executive, legislature, and judiciary, work together to uphold the
importance of the British constitution's many doctrines, such as constitutional conventions,
rule of law, separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, and judicial review.
The United Kingdom is governed by a constitutional monarchy which means The queen is
the most powerful person in the country. However, as the leader of the executive branch,
the prime minister makes the most critical choices. Though the principle is one of collective
cabinet decision-making, if the prime minister's persona is strong, their personal political
influence may tend to overwhelm their colleagues. The United Kingdom has transformed by
devolution due to the way it was run, devolution refers to a process of moving of power
from a main organization to a lower level. Here, it decentralised the government and more
power was given to three nations and together with England, it made up the United
Kingdom. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom.
Devolution in the sense that there was a transfer of powers from the parliament of UK in
London to assemblies in Belfast and Cardiff and Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
In constitutional law there is always an argument between the two views on what would
provide legitimacy in the UK constitution. The ones who say political constitutionalist, the
main thing is political process, parliament and the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
The case of Miller v SOS for exiting the EU (2017) UKSC 5 created an approach of the
Supreme Court’s judgement. The judgement was stated by Lord Neuberger and he said The
EU Treaties, as implemented under the 1972 Act, were and continue to be one-of-a-kind in
terms of legislative and constitutional implications. For the first time in the United
Kingdom's history, a dynamic, worldwide source of law was grafted onto, and above, the
domestic legal system in 1972. Ministers, acting globally, waited for Parliament, acting
domestically, to I give explicit, if not legally binding, assent in the form of resolutions, and (ii)
to enable the Treaty to be effective by adopting the 1972 Act before I signing and (ii)
ratifying the 1972 Accession Treaty. Given this unique history and the constitutional
principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, it seems highly unlikely that those two parties
intended or expected ministers, the constitutionally junior partner in the exercise, to be able
to remove the graft without formal appropriate sanction from Parliament, the
constitutionally senior partner in the exercise. So because execution of a referendum result
requires a change in the law of the land, and because statute does not allow for such a
change, the change in the law must be achieved in the only way that the UK constitution
allows, namely by Parliamentary legislation. It is entirely up to Parliament to determine
what form any legislation should take. However, in light of a point made during oral
argument, it is appropriate to add that Parliament may elect to It's pointless to content itself
with a very short law. There is no such thing as equivalency between a statute's or any other
document's constitutional relevance and its length or complexity. A notice under article
50(2) may, without a doubt, be very brief, but it would not diminish its importance. The key
point is that if, as we believe, a prerogative act would otherwise result in a change in
domestic law, the act can only be carried out legitimately with the approval of primary
legislation enacted by the Queen in Parliament. The approach of the political constitution
clash with Legal constitutionalist and arguments have been made that judiciary should have
a bigger role and to strike down Acts of Parliament which are unconstitutional.
An advantage of an unwritten constitution as we all know is flexibility, this allows the

constitution to be up to date in terms of public morality.

Assess Whether The Case For A Written Constitution For The United Kingdom Is Now Compelling.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assess Whether The Case For A Written Constitution For The United Kingdom Is Now Compelling.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assess Whether The Case For A Written Constitution For The United Kingdom Is Now Compelling.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

It is known to all that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.

An advantage of an unwritten constitution as we all know is flexibility, this allows the

You might also like