Constitution Flashcards
Magna Carta
1215
Bill of rights
1689
Act of settlement
1701
Acts of Union
1707
Parliament Acts
1911 and 1949
Parliamentary Statutes
Human Rights Act 1998
Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011
The nature of the constitution
Unentrenched
Uncodified
Unitary
The twin pillars
Parliamentary sovereignty
Rule of Law
Statue law
Fixed-term parliament act 2011
Common law
?
Constitutional Conventions- David Cameron
2013 David Cameron sought approval for air action in Syria in 2013. Parliament, on that occasion, refused to sanction this
2015-Cameron called another vote on whether airstrikes should be used on Syria. This time there was a 174 majority for the motion to be actioned.
Previously PM’s had gone into war without discussing with Parliament (controversial)- Blair, Thatcher
Constitutional Conventions- PM
The Prime Minister exercises the Queen’s power to appoint and dismiss Ministers, to conduct foreign policy, to grant various honours, such as peerages and knighthoods
Historical principles and authoritative writings
The sovereignty of Parliament.
Parliamentary Government - the principle that the authority of the government is drawn from Parliament and not directly from the people.
The Rule of Law – originating from the second part of the 19th Century, the rule of law establishes, among other things, the principles of equal rights for citizens and that government is itself limited by legal limitations.
Customs and traditions
The practice of allowing the Queen to announce the legislative programme (new laws) for the coming year (the Queen’s Speech) is such a tradition.
Many of the rules of debate in both houses are also such traditions.
Treaties
?
1997 Constitutional Reform ideas
Democratization
Decentralization
Stronger protection of rights
Modernization
Decentralisation achieved
Government of Wales Act 1998
Scotland Act 1998
Northern Ireland Act 1998
Democratisation achieved
House of Lords Act 1999
Stronger protection of rights achieved
Human Rights Act 1998
Coalition of 2010-2015 making official how long to wait in-between elections
Fixed Term Parliaments 2011
Coalition government does further devolution to wales
?
Major reforms to the constitution since 2015
Repeal Fixed Term Parliament act
Talk of replacing the Humans Rights Act
Scottish calls for independence growing- denied a second one by Johnson/Sunak
Successful constitutional change- 3
Reform of judiciary- Supreme Court established, independent body from government, helps protect rights, brings the UK in modern outlooks of democracy
Devolution- popular especially in Scotland, support for great autonomy has grown in Wales, retained the fragile peace in NI
Freedom of Information Act 2000- allowed the media to investigate the work of government and public bodies effectively, allowed citizens to prevent injustices by accessing previously withheld information
Partial successful constitutional change- 4
HOL- largely appointed, not properly accountable/representative, only a fully elected chamber will allow this, more professional and effective in checking government power and legislation now though
HOC- lack of accountability is a problem, select committees are considerably more effective since their reform
Human Right Act- vital, not got the political status needed, European Convention cannot overrule Acts of Parliament so rights can be trampled on by powerful governments, internment was seen as a point for this case after 9/11
Devolution- widely a success, Scotland and Wales argue it’s not gone far enough, further powers were transferred after 2016, constant threat of a break-up of the UK
Failures of constitutional change- 2
Electoral reform- not been done for parliamentary or local elections, this measure is seen as a fundamental political system reform which would be for the better
Reform of HOL- failure to introduce a democratic and elected second chamber, negative, widespread agreement that it should be partly or fully elected, no government has made meaningful reform
Asymmetric devolution
The Scottish Government has been granted more power than Wales and Northern Ireland
Devolution in England
?
The powers of the 3 devolved bodies
?
Positives of devolution-5
The UK has not broken up.
The peace has largely been held in NI.
There remains widespread public support in all 3 countries for devolution (not reflected in voting turnouts).
No serious proposals have been made to reverse it.
It has made some decisive differences.
Negative of devolution-5
Scottish nationalism is endangering the UK
Turnouts in elections to devolved assemblies have been low, suggesting apathy
The introduction of PR systems has inhibited decisive government in the 3 countries.
The 3 countries still have to receive a subsidy from the
Treasury to maintain their services, so they are not yet self-supporting.
Levaing the EU impact on the consitution
It is changing the following since 2020:
The status of Parliament- it now answers to no-one
Restoring the national sovereignty of UK courts- they answer to no-one
How the UK is governed- no European laws have input on our laws
Constitutional reform since 1997 improved UK democracy
The Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reform of the judiciary
Devolution-popular especially in Scotland, autonomy in Wales has grown compared to the initial referendum (low turnout), retained the peace in NI
Referendums- increase in use
Fixed-term parliament
Constitutional reform since 1997 limited impact on the UK democracy
Human Rights Act- can be removed by the government, internment was used, rights can be trampled on by government
House of Lords- not accountable, authoritative or representative, not fully elected, still hereditary peers, undemocratic, no government has been able to implement meaningful reform despite a widespread agreement that it should be voted for
Electoral Reform
Codification- creates uncertainty as uncodified, lack of public understanding, the danger of excessively powerful government
Arguments for further devolution-4
Extend democracy and improve democratic accountability by bringing government closer to communities
A devolved government could better reflect the problems specific to regions
Help to prevent excessive differences between living standards and the quality of life in different parts of the UK
Might improve local participation in politics
Arguments against further devolution-4
Create a new layer of government which would be expensive
Create a need for too many elections promoting voter apathy
Very few signs of any great demand for such devolution
Regional devolution might create greater divisions in society, promoting disunity rather than unity
Arguments for codification- 3
Human Rights- stronger safeguards for individual and minority rights, adopted the European Convention on Human Rights, weak, overridden by Parliament as sovereign, no constitutional legislation can remove sovereignty, codified could not pass any legislation that offended human rights protections
Executive power- liberals and other reformers find the power excessive compared to the Conservative and others who want to retain the power, codified would inhibit the apparently irreversible drift towards greater executive power, checks and balances, Parliament needs to have codified powers to enable it to control government on behalf of the people
Clarity- most citizens don’t understand the concept of a constitution, no concrete form, creating one means the public would have real awareness+support can grow, if people know their rights and understand better how government works it could cure political ignorance and apathy
Arguments against codification- 3
Executive power-government can be more powerful, better to have a government that can deal with crisis or problems without too much inhibition, the USA are prevented from acting decisively frequently, the relationship between Government and Parliament is flexible
Conservative pragmatism- served the country well for many centuries, with no violent revolutions or major political unrest, change has occurred naturally and when necessary, the constitution would be an extremely difficult exercise and the meagre benefits would not be worth the problems incurred
The dangers of politicising the judiciary- codified would involve the courts, in particular, the Supreme Court in disputes over its precise meaning and application many issues would be political like in the USA, conflicts over the exact powers of government eg nature of rights relations with the Eu relations between England Scotland Wales and NI, judges being involved in political matter puts their independence in jeopardy, judges aren’t elected so not accountable
Should the UK constitution be changed to be entrenched and codified, including a bill or rights
?
