Should the UK have a codified constitution? - A codified constitution protects the rights of the
people which can easily be taken away by the sovereign parliament (in 2015 the ECHR ruled in favour of
the 1000 prisoners who appealed their right to vote, however, the UK government refused to comply...
Paper 2 possible essay questions
Should the UK have a codified constitution? - ✔✔✔A codified constitution protects the rights of the
people which can easily be taken away by the sovereign parliament (in 2015 the ECHR ruled in favour of
the 1000 prisoners who appealed their right to vote, however, the UK government refused to comply)
/An un-codified constitution is more flexible and can adapt to change, which is vital as the needs of the
country are constantly changing, creating competing rights. Plus, rights in the UK are protected by
convention and the risk of outcry (the implementation of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act in
2015 did somewhat infringe on freedom of movement, but the un-codified constitution allowed them to
prioritise public safety under Article 5)
A codified constitution would provide the high courts with greater clarity regarding constitutional laws
by removing the need for precedent, which could allow the Rule of Law to be better upheld (Regina V
Jogee 2015 brought to light a history of misinterpretation regarding the common law doctrine of Joint
Enterprise, which led to Ameen Jogee's sentence being reduced by 8 years)/The dangers of the judiciary
- a codified constitution requires the courts, which would mean that unelected judges would be directly
involved in political matters (Shown by SCOTUS case: District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 in which the SC
decided that people were able to keep firearms in their homes under the 2nd Amendment which was
not something implicitly implied by the 'right to bear arms')
TWE does the fact of parliamentary sovereignty boost UK democracy? - ✔✔✔Parliament can easily
infringe upon or remove rights (2015 Counter-terrorism and security act and overturning of ECHR ruling
in 2015 regarding voting rights)/parliament is unlikely to remove rights in the short term due to risk of
outcry and a focus on convention (Outcry was heard from Manchester after they were placed under
strict lockdown measures in 2020 without sufficient economic support, and outcry was heard after the
government broke the Sewell Convention in leaving the EU without the consent of any of the three
devolved legislatures whom all refused to support the withdrawal agreement)
A party with a majority can easily act upon the mandate given to them by the electorate (In 2020, Tory
party was able to act upon their manifesto of 'Get Brexit Done', having won 365/650 seats in 2019)/Due
to FPTP, parties don't tend to win with a majority, and therefore their mandate's do not hold much
legitimacy (no party has won with more than 50% of the vote since 1935, in 2019, it was won with 43.6%
and 42.4% in 2017)
,TWE is the UK constitution too easy to amend? - ✔✔✔Having flexibility allows for competing rights
issues to be easily resolved (Counter-terrorism and security act 2015)/some rights can be taken away
too easily due to parliamentary sovereignty (2015 ECHR ruling on criminal voting rights)
Fear of outcry has discouraged the breaking of convention, which is deeply enshrined in UK culture
(government formation by the monarch allows the government to be formed by the party who has won
the most seats or in the case of the 2010 coalition, based on a deal struck by two relatively popular
parties, Theresa May's confidence and supply deal with the DUP caused outcry in 2017)/Convention can
still be broken due to parliamentary sovereignty (Sewel Convention broken in 2020 by the passing of the
withdrawal agreement)
TWE has the constitution provided effective protection of rights? - ✔✔✔UK constitution is uncodified
and therefore not entrenched, which means that it can easily be changed with a simple act of
parliament (institution of the Counter-Terrorism Act in 2015 restricted freedom of movement)/strong
emphasis on constitutional convention mean that trusted aspects of the constitution are unlikely to be
changed in the short term (a key example is how the monarch has the power to refuse Royal Assent but
has not since 1707, giving power to elected officials)
Parliament is ultimately sovereign, so they can pass any amendments they wish (UK parliament refused
to accept the appeal allowed by the ECHR to 1000 prisoners who had appealed their voting rights, citing
'parliamentary sovereignty')/Major changes that severely impinge on people's rights are likely to be met
with outcry (Outcry was heard from Manchester after they were placed under strict lockdown measures
in 2020 without sufficient economic support, and outcry was heard after the government broke the
Sewell Convention in leaving the EU without the consent of any of the three devolved legislatures whom
all refused to support the withdrawal agreement)
TWE does the UK need further constitutional reform? - ✔✔✔Codified constitution: having a codified
constitution may add further protection of rights which could be taken away with simple acts of
parliament (2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act), but this same evidence also suggests that the
current flexibility allows competing rights issues to be resolved easily and for the greater good
Further devolution: further devolution may satiate nationalism which could increase unity (Scottish
independence backed by approx 54% in 2020 polls) while also encouraging more accountability (Nicola
Sturgeon on Scottish fishing and Dan Jarvis on Corona support package)/further devolution could cause
, further tensions between local governments (Andy Burnham and Nicola Sturgeon v Boris Johnson on
corona tiers)
Separation of legislature from the executive: this would allow for greater scrutiny between the branches
as is seen in the US where, particularly when there is a divided electorate, the branches provide heavy
checks and balances (it took until 2010 for Obama to pass his healthcare reform bill after heavy scrutiny
from the legislature, who had also been elected by the people)/this allows for all cabinet members to be
have been elected by the people, as they are also members of the Commons
TWE does the House of Lords need further reform? - ✔✔✔Elected House of Lords would increase
accountability in Parliament (Lord Denning was a very controversial law lord, especially for his
comments on cases such as the Birmingham 6 in 1980 despite his unelected status)/Remain unelected:
having an elected HoL would essentially make it a second Commons, and would also introduce political
point scoring which would undermine their ability to represent minority interests (Crossbench peer,
Lord Pannick, proposed an amendment to the withdrawal agreement in 2018 which would transfer the
Charter of Fundamental Rights into domestic law - however, this was rejected, questioning their
authority and the potential need for reform in order to allow better representation)
Improved representation (Lords is currently 6.3% BAME and 27% female, whereas 50% of peers should
be female and 13.8% should be BAME, while 55% of peers are from London, the South, and the South
East, making other areas of the country underrepresented) /Maintaining current makeup (Life peers are
usually appointed for their expertise on a subject, so having a quote may limit this pool (former leader of
the Lords, Baronness Amos is a former UN under-secretary and has expertise and experience in foreign
affairs, as well as being from Guyana, and a representative of the BAME community)
TWE has devolution benefitted UK democracy? - ✔✔✔More power to address local issues (increased
calls for alternatives to cars in London led to the introduction of the Boris Bike in 2010, and more bike
lanes in 2020 under mayor Sadiq Khan) (A: local govts don't always have the power to address such
issues, as shown by the lack of influence Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham had over corona economic
support when in tier 3) /Devolution has led to an increase in Nationalism, particularly in Scotland where
the SNP dominate, and newly in Wales where Plaid Cymru have expressed interest in independence,
which has meant that people feel unrepresented in decisions made by Westminster (Decision to leave
the EU despite NI and Scotland voting to remain and then voting against the 2020 withdrawal
agreement)
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur jessyqueen. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €15,50. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
