Paper 2 politics
Does the UK need a codified constitution?
Came up last year 2023
Yes - overly reliant on unwritten conventions that are not legally enforceable
Gov argue that HOL have broken multiple conventions including Salisbury convention and common's
'financial privilege' when the house voted to block its tax credit reforms in 2015
Also use examples of ministerial convention
Arguably unacceptable that matters as important as the role of prerogative and circumstances under
which the UK enters into conflict (Houthi example) are left to unwritten convention that could
ultimately be broken
But - conventions not often broken
This convention was demonstrated in 2019 when several members of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's
government resigned in protest against his Brexit strategy, adhering to the tradition of resigning on
matters of principle.
Weak para maybe try and search for better examples and can actually be good
Yes - codified constitution needed to establish a proper separation of powers
Currently the executive and legislative branches in the UK are fused with both the PM and other
ministers able to sit in the commons. HOL can only delay bills and are even more limited in terms of
money laws.
Get examples for the legislative failings in the UK
But - stronger separation of powers could lead to gridlock and judicial activism
A codified constitution would politicise the SC
Yes - flexibility allows parliament to make significant constitutional reforms too easily
UK parliament can amend the constitution by simply passing a bill, an unwritten convention has
begun to develop where referendums are held to approve significant constitutional reforms e.g.
Brexit, Scotland 2014 but as conventions are unwritten there's no guarantee this step will always be
taken
But - the flexibility of uncodified constitution is an important asset
US codified constitution only been amended 27 times since 1787, ten included in 1791 bill of rights
whereas UK have been able to evolve throughout history
Means parliament has flexibility to respond to crises without being limited by higher constitutional
laws like with covid
Parliament reacted to 1996 Dunblane school shooting by swiftly banning majority of handguns in
England, Scotland and Wales, as supported by the majority of the public, in contrast US still struggle
to pass anything related to gun violence as a result of entrenched second amendment
HOL act, major step towards modernising HOL and enhancing its legitimacy to the public, evolution
Yes - HRA strengthened our rights
HRA allows SC to issue a 'declaration of incompatibility when laws undermine human rights,
parliamentary sovereignty means it's then up to parliament to decide how to respond
Courts able to use list of rights in ECHR to challenge legislation
UK ministers must submit a 'statement of compatibility' explaining how their bill is compatible with
the ECHR
But - as these rights aren't entrenched they could be changed by parliament
SC cannot strike down laws = Rwanda
,Because we lack a codified constitution and because parliament is sovereign they can pass or repeal
any law regardless of the SC
'statement of compatibility' are not legally binding
Campaigners argue that as long as the UK has an uncodified constitution our rights can too easily be
amended by parliament, Tories want to change it to bill of rights
Have the constitutional reforms made since 1997 not gone far enough:
Devolution:
Scotland act, gov of Wales act, good Friday agreement significantly reformed the UK constitution
Use devolution examples
However West Lothian question as counter?
Or could bring in EU here but is more of an either or situation
The UK's departure from the EU has exposed tensions between the central government and
devolved administrations, particularly in Scotland and Wales. The EU (Withdrawal) Act initially
sought to centralize powers repatriated from the EU to Westminster, bypassing devolved
institutions. This sparked legal challenges and calls for constitutional reforms to ensure a more
inclusive and cooperative approach. The Sewel Convention, which stipulates that the UK Parliament
will not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent from the devolved legislatures, was
disregarded during the Brexit process, undermining principles of devolution
Human rights act:
Made the rights on ECHR statute law, prior to this people had to take their cases to the ECtHR
Section three of HRS requires SCOTUK to interpret existing statues so that they comply with the HRA,
section 4 requires a declaration of incompatibility with a convention right
Act also influences parliament by requiring bills to be issued with statements explaining how they
comply with human rights
However many conservative MPs want to withdraw from ECHR
Replace the HRA with a UK bill of rights to rewrite more ambiguous rights, particularly the 'right to
family life' which has been used to stop the extradition of criminals
Parliament statements are not legally binding
Tories also argue that the ECHR undermines parliamentary sovereignty as under article 46 of the
ECHR the UK gov have to abide by the court's rulings, particularly frustrated by Hirst v United
Kingdom
Reform of the judiciary:
CRA 2005 enhanced judicial independence, removed law lords, established JAC
Use judicial independence and judicial power examples
However SC still weaker than its equivalents in other nations
Can't strike down laws for being unconstitutional due to UK having uncodified constitution
Rwanda rejected by the SC but still ended up passing months later
Also lack of diversity use examples from SC
Brings into question whether UK needs codified constitution, would establish much clearer checks
and balances between branches and thus would empower judiciary
European union:
By leaving the EU there has been greater parliamentary sovereignty
UK gov no longer bound by EU directives and regulations, issued by the European commission
Gov no longer constrained by freedom of movement
Allowed them to do rule of six and lockdown during COVID
, 2023 EU agreed that biofuels could power motor cars after pressure from Germany's powerful
motor lobbyists, u-turning on net zero obligations which had previously meant all non-electric cars
would be banned by 2030
This will impact all EU members but not the UK
Grant Schapps stated that the UK will still ban all new petrol and diesel cars by 2035 via statutory
instrument
Counter…
The withdrawal agreement and subsequent trade deals with the EU have introduced elements of EU
law into the UK legal framework, e.g. Northern Ireland protocol, leading to debates about the extent
to which the UK's sovereignty has been fully restored
While Brexit has brought back parliamentary sovereignty in theory, the practical implications suggest
otherwise. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which transferred EU law into UK law,
granted extensive powers to government ministers through delegated legislation. This undermined
Parliament's ability to scrutinize and amend laws related to Brexit, leading to concerns about
democratic accountability. The House of Lords Constitution Committee raised alarms about the Act's
broad scope of delegated powers, highlighting the need for greater parliamentary oversight
Northern Ireland protocol means NI remains part of the UK's customs territory but continues to
apply EU customs rules and procedures so flows can flow freely between NI and RI without customs
checks
Does this link to devolution?? Ask
HOL reform (could do instead of judiciary para this one's quite good, SC may link too heavily to
EU?):
HOL reform act 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers, greater legitimacy, life peers also brings
expertise and greater independence
Helped lords be more assertive and make more amendments/oppositions find examples for this in
notes
However was always intended that HOL reforms would come in two stages
Second stage never materialised as Tories defeated 2012 HOL reform bill so issue of 92 remaining
hereditary peers not addressed, leaving the lords open to charges of being undemocratic
2015 Strathclyde review investigated whether HOL power to veto statutory instruments should be
restricted after Lords blocked gov reforms to working tax credits, review suggested a number of
reforms including fully removing all power to veto SI
Evaluate the view that the constitution should be codified and entrenched
(a-level politics podcast)
CAME UP LAST YEAR 2023
Argument: codified constitution is good
Strong: codified constitutions could be just as flexible as an uncodified constitution
Parliamentary sovereignty is arguably threatened by unchecked executive power that
dominates parliament, uncodified constitution allows this
Public order act 2023 gives police powers to arrest protestors was rushed through
parliament with barely any scrutiny so that it could happen before the kings coronation, a
codified constitution with established citizens rights would have prevented this
With codified rights parliament would have found it much harder to pass elections act 2022
or policing act 2022 as all violate democracy
