UK PAPER 2 ESSAY PLANS
TOPIC: The constitution
The UK should introduce a codified constitution - To what extent do you agree?
AGAINST
- An uncodified constitution allows for a strong government that can pass publicly passed policies with
ease.
- This was seen with Boris Johnson's ability to pass Coronavirus Act 2020 with it being fast-tracked through
Parliament in 4 days.
- Executive resides 'de facto', enables then to act in the public mandate, voted for in general elections. But
there are conventions!
COUNTER
- There is too much concentration of power, allows for arbitrary exercise of state power. (Seen with Boris
Johnson separation of Parliament.
FOR:
- Entrenchment
- A codified constitution would allow for greater protection of human rights.
- Would prevent the government from acting 'unconstitutionally’.
- Seen in 2016, the government passing Jobseekers Act so that they didn't violate Human right.
- HRA does not have same entrenched values of US Bill of Rights
COUNTER
- A codified constitution may place too much power in the hands of the judges , who are unelected. Could
be perceived as undemocratic.
– Hence, although benefiting the protection of individuals, they can’t re-elect
AGAINST
- It allows for adaptability, but doesn’t guarantee accountability of the executive, unlike entrenchment that
does guarantee accountability
- The adaptability of an uncodified constitution allows for an orgabic evolution of the constitution through
reforms
- David Cameron was able to pass Scotland Actv2016 when Scotland felt that the constitution did not
provide them with enought powers
- Such adaptations would be harder with a codified constitution as the executive would be restricted from
altering the question of constitution
COUNTER
, UK PAPER 2 ESSAY PLANS
- These reformed, especially in Scotland, could result in a constitutional crisis where Scotland wishes to
become independent - a written constitution would help prevent such extremities.
TOPIC: The Constitution
To what extent have constitutional reforms in recent years made the UK more democratic?
FOR: Legislative efficiency
- Recent reforms have enabled the electorate to get closer to the legislative bodies l, increasing access
points to raise concerns
- Devolution, introduced by Tony Blair's Labour, gave Scotland their own Parliament with primary legislative
powers (Scotland have free University tuition vs England £9250)
- Allows Scottish voice to be heard more (like their call for independence)
COUNTER:
- However, Parliament (in Westminster) is still constitutionally sovereign, arbitrary government could
retract the developed phases
- (May lead to breakup of the UK)
AGAINST: Unelected Power
- Constitutional reforms has placed more power in the hands of unelected judges.
- Constitutional reforms Act 1999 saw the introduction of the supreme court appointed by the 'JAC'
- Unrepresentative, all white only 2 women
COUNTER:
- Generally, though it is democratic, it satisfies one of the key functions of constitution: Judiciary can hold
unlawful governments to account E.g Jobseekers Act violating HRA
- Independent and neutral
- Scrutiny of the government
- Boris suspending parliament
FOR: More representative
- Reforms has seen UK's political bodies become more representative.
- House of Lords Actv1999 saw ALL BUT 92 hereditary peers removed
- A higher proportion now appointed due to merit + diversity by the independent HOL Commission. NOT by
birth.
- Reduced the partisan ship in the Lords, allowed them to hold government to account. E g 12/13- Gov'
suffered 48 defects to the Lords (Matters like welfare reform, legal aid)
COUNTER
, UK PAPER 2 ESSAY PLANS
- However reform of the Lords is still incomplete - not yet fully elected or fully representative
- Clegg, in 2012, tried to reform to fully elected, but the Tory backbench rebelled
TOPIC: The constitution
Access the strengths and weaknesses of the UK constitution
STRENGTH
- Evolution of the constitution
- The uncodified constitution allows for flexibility and change.
- Introduction of devolution under Tony Blair was a response to the rising nationalism in Scotland + Wales.
- UK constitution is not entrenched, therefore can be altered.
- Statute Law an be passed through Parliament much easier
COUNTER
- Level of entrenchment= Weak protection of Rights--- (This could be an argument for WEAKNESS instead)
- Government would in theory remove the MRN 1998.
WEAKNESS
- The UK's Constitution is outdated and undemocratic
- Tony Blair able to use Royal perogative to go to war in Iraq without the consent of Parliament
- Although convention to vote in deployment of war soldiers, this is flawed in that huge parliamentary
majorities will back it
COUNTER
- Some "undemocratic" and outdated features beginning to be ammended
- House of Lords act 1999
STRENGTH
- Allows for a strong government to at in the best interests of the people quickly and decisively
- Anti- terrorism legislation was passed quickly in 2005 after the 7/7 bombing in London.
- Allows for an evolving constitution act on behalf of the people
COUNTER
- The executive could be perceived as an elective dictatorship, they can do whatever they please.
- Just like when Thatcher decided to privatise 40 industries in the 1980's as she had a very HOC majority
TOPIC: The constitution
The UK should introduce a codified constitution - To what extent do you agree?
AGAINST
- An uncodified constitution allows for a strong government that can pass publicly passed policies with
ease.
- This was seen with Boris Johnson's ability to pass Coronavirus Act 2020 with it being fast-tracked through
Parliament in 4 days.
- Executive resides 'de facto', enables then to act in the public mandate, voted for in general elections. But
there are conventions!
COUNTER
- There is too much concentration of power, allows for arbitrary exercise of state power. (Seen with Boris
Johnson separation of Parliament.
FOR:
- Entrenchment
- A codified constitution would allow for greater protection of human rights.
- Would prevent the government from acting 'unconstitutionally’.
- Seen in 2016, the government passing Jobseekers Act so that they didn't violate Human right.
- HRA does not have same entrenched values of US Bill of Rights
COUNTER
- A codified constitution may place too much power in the hands of the judges , who are unelected. Could
be perceived as undemocratic.
– Hence, although benefiting the protection of individuals, they can’t re-elect
AGAINST
- It allows for adaptability, but doesn’t guarantee accountability of the executive, unlike entrenchment that
does guarantee accountability
- The adaptability of an uncodified constitution allows for an orgabic evolution of the constitution through
reforms
- David Cameron was able to pass Scotland Actv2016 when Scotland felt that the constitution did not
provide them with enought powers
- Such adaptations would be harder with a codified constitution as the executive would be restricted from
altering the question of constitution
COUNTER
, UK PAPER 2 ESSAY PLANS
- These reformed, especially in Scotland, could result in a constitutional crisis where Scotland wishes to
become independent - a written constitution would help prevent such extremities.
TOPIC: The Constitution
To what extent have constitutional reforms in recent years made the UK more democratic?
FOR: Legislative efficiency
- Recent reforms have enabled the electorate to get closer to the legislative bodies l, increasing access
points to raise concerns
- Devolution, introduced by Tony Blair's Labour, gave Scotland their own Parliament with primary legislative
powers (Scotland have free University tuition vs England £9250)
- Allows Scottish voice to be heard more (like their call for independence)
COUNTER:
- However, Parliament (in Westminster) is still constitutionally sovereign, arbitrary government could
retract the developed phases
- (May lead to breakup of the UK)
AGAINST: Unelected Power
- Constitutional reforms has placed more power in the hands of unelected judges.
- Constitutional reforms Act 1999 saw the introduction of the supreme court appointed by the 'JAC'
- Unrepresentative, all white only 2 women
COUNTER:
- Generally, though it is democratic, it satisfies one of the key functions of constitution: Judiciary can hold
unlawful governments to account E.g Jobseekers Act violating HRA
- Independent and neutral
- Scrutiny of the government
- Boris suspending parliament
FOR: More representative
- Reforms has seen UK's political bodies become more representative.
- House of Lords Actv1999 saw ALL BUT 92 hereditary peers removed
- A higher proportion now appointed due to merit + diversity by the independent HOL Commission. NOT by
birth.
- Reduced the partisan ship in the Lords, allowed them to hold government to account. E g 12/13- Gov'
suffered 48 defects to the Lords (Matters like welfare reform, legal aid)
COUNTER
, UK PAPER 2 ESSAY PLANS
- However reform of the Lords is still incomplete - not yet fully elected or fully representative
- Clegg, in 2012, tried to reform to fully elected, but the Tory backbench rebelled
TOPIC: The constitution
Access the strengths and weaknesses of the UK constitution
STRENGTH
- Evolution of the constitution
- The uncodified constitution allows for flexibility and change.
- Introduction of devolution under Tony Blair was a response to the rising nationalism in Scotland + Wales.
- UK constitution is not entrenched, therefore can be altered.
- Statute Law an be passed through Parliament much easier
COUNTER
- Level of entrenchment= Weak protection of Rights--- (This could be an argument for WEAKNESS instead)
- Government would in theory remove the MRN 1998.
WEAKNESS
- The UK's Constitution is outdated and undemocratic
- Tony Blair able to use Royal perogative to go to war in Iraq without the consent of Parliament
- Although convention to vote in deployment of war soldiers, this is flawed in that huge parliamentary
majorities will back it
COUNTER
- Some "undemocratic" and outdated features beginning to be ammended
- House of Lords act 1999
STRENGTH
- Allows for a strong government to at in the best interests of the people quickly and decisively
- Anti- terrorism legislation was passed quickly in 2005 after the 7/7 bombing in London.
- Allows for an evolving constitution act on behalf of the people
COUNTER
- The executive could be perceived as an elective dictatorship, they can do whatever they please.
- Just like when Thatcher decided to privatise 40 industries in the 1980's as she had a very HOC majority
