codification debate essay Flashcards
codification would offer greater protection for important laws
for codification
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has authority to make or repeal any law, and that its enactments cannot be invalidated by any court or any other institution.
Therefore important laws such as the human rights act which outline and protect citizens rights could be changed or repealed at any given time.
A codified constitution would create an extensive and fair legislation process which cannot be bypassed. Meaning that no damaging reform could be made to important laws that protect people (such as the HRA).
However, it could be argued that there would be no need for this process as the electorate themselves can prevent damage to important acts via way of election.
If the government makes decisions like limiting rights the electorate can vote them out at the next election. In emergency cases the house of commons could argue they no longer represent the people and call a vote of no confidence.
Codification would provide a check for the executive
for codification
The safety or Rwanda bill encountered major opposition from the Lords and was even ruled to be inhumane by the UK supreme court, despite this prime minister Rishi Sunak ignored the ruling and continued to push the bill.
The safety of rwanda bill is a major example of the government acting without a mandate, the bill was not outlined in the conservative 2019 manifesto and faced major controversy yet was continually pushed.
A codified constitution would prevent these situations by creating a complex pre-outlined legal process that could not be skipped by the government.
Parliment is soveriegn
against codification
One of parliament’s major functions is to represent the people of the UK, the 650 MPs are each voted to represent their constituencies.
Considering parliment is representative of the electorate its powers should not be restricted because this would in turn restrict the people. By replacing the current system with an outlined legislation process, codification would prevent the people from having as much influence over legislation thereby reducing democracy.
Codification would slow the amendment and creation of legislaition
against codification
The nature of UK politics often calls for flexible legislation such as when the fixed term parliament act was repealed in 2022 after just 11 years, as it was judged unfit for its original purpose.
Had the constitution been codified there would have been a lengthy process before the act could be repealed which in turn would slow down the house of commons and the addressing of bigger political issues.
There is also a safety aspect to this argument considering the use of emergency powers. The conservative government was given extra powers during the covid-19 pandemic to ensure the country could respond as fast as possible to save lives.
Codification may create a process for emergency powers too which would threaten national safety by slowing and complicating the government’s ability to respond to the crisis.
