The Constitution Flashcards
- Evaluate the extent to which the arguments that the UK constitution should remain codified are convincing. [30]
points
limit government power
safeguard citizen rights
government to act decisively
unelected judges into political arena
- Evaluate the extent to which the arguments that the UK constitution should remain codified are convincing. [30]
limit government power
YES CODIFIED 1 - Limit government power
- Under our uncondified constitution, ultimate legislative sovereignty resides in Parliament, which can pass any legislation it wishes, without a need to be concerned with fundamental constitutional rights. For a bill to become an act of Parliament, it needs to be passed by the Commons and the Lords before going before the Monarch who has formal discretion whether to assent to the bill. In practice this Royal Assent has become a formality.
- Lord Hailsham described the Labour government in 1976 as an ‘elective dictatorship’ to refer to how easy the Labour government was passing bills despite Harold Wilson having just a 4 seat lead over Conservatives and having won over 3% less of the popular vote. Suggests this leads to an ‘tyranny of the majority’
- COUNTER - Not always the case as seen with the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit Bill in 2019 which lost by a record 230 votes.
- Evaluate the extent to which the arguments that the UK constitution should remain codified are convincing. [30]
safeguard citizen rights
YES CODIFIED 2 - Safeguard citizen rights
-In 1998, the ECHR was brought into UK law under the Human Rights Act. Whilst this was a step forward and bound the human rights to a larger body (the EU) in practice it is not always convincing as seen with the Belmarsh Case whereby the UK refuted the EU and didn’t provide prisoners with voting rights. Whilst it’s true this is a rare case it still leaves the people liable to a rash government.
-An entrenched right is enshrined with a stronger form of protection from repeals or amendments than a normal law would be. Therefore, entrenched rights constitute a ‘higher-law’ which should represent the values which a nation holds most dear. As it lacks a written constitution, The United Kingdom’s legal system does not have any such entrenched rights or values
COUNTER - some say in practice this is not an issue as the UK has ‘common law’ which allows judges to act based on their own interpretation, which has protected in particular the rights of LGBT until the 2014 Marriage and Civil Partnership Act which allowed the same rights to same-sex couples.
- Evaluate the extent to which the arguments that the UK constitution should remain codified are convincing. [30]
allow government to act decisively
NO CODIFIED 1 - Allows government to act decisively and quickly
-Following the 7/7 the uncodified constitution meant then PM Tony Blair was able to act quickly and introduce the necessary security measures such as the 2005 Prevention of Terror Act which allowed suspects to be held for a prolonged period of time (90 days) whilst the security services built their case.
COUNTER - a government passing bills quickly is essential in times of emergency. However, this power can easily be abused. In 2019 Labour MP Margaret Beckett accused Theresa May and the executive of becoming a ‘dictatorship’ due to the manner of Parliament choosing what is debated and what bills are put forward.
-Overall, however, government bill rejections are becoming more common with MPs more keen to disobey their government.
- Evaluate the extent to which the arguments that the UK constitution should remain codified are convincing. [30]
unelected judges into political arena
NO CODIFIED 2 - Would bring unelected judges into political arena
If the UK developed a codified constitution this would make the role of unelected judges increasingly necessary to interpret the law. Doing so would bring unelected officials into the law which can be very controversial as seen with Brett Kavanaugh in the USA.
-COUNTER - elected judges are simply “cogs of the machine” and act based on the ideology they are elected rather than on a case-by-case basis.
-Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK’s constitutional arrangements [30]
points
common law
anti-discrimination legislation
limitations to freedom of information
echr has no teeth
-Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK’s constitutional arrangements [30]
common law shields us
YES 1 - COMMON LAW SHIELDS US
- Where statute law does not protect/define rights judges use precedent and tradition to rule accordingly
- Common law is the development of laws through historical usage and tradition
- Rights of non-married cohabiting couples were only protected in this way
- COUNTER - However, there is no British Bill of Rights so this can be repealed
-Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK’s constitutional arrangements [30]
anti-discrimination legislation
YES 2 - ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION
- Equality act 2010 - outlawed all forms of discrimination in the UK - age, disability, gender, marital status, race, religion etc.
- Data Protection Act 1998, Equal Pay Act 1970 and Race Relations Act 1965
- COUNTER - can be repealed no British Bill of Rights
-Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK’s constitutional arrangements [30]
serious limitations to freedom of information
NO 1 - SERIOUS LIMITATIONS TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
- Onus is on citizens to prove that information should be released - rather than automatically. Guardian 2012 over 10% of applications rejected
- Security services exempt
- COUNTER - Information Tribunal rules on what must be released e.g MPs expenses scandal 2009
- Leniency to security services guards right to security
-Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK’s constitutional arrangements [30]
echr has no teeth
NO 2 - THE ECHR HAS NO TEETH
- Despite Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating Convention into UK law from 2000 the European Court of Human Rights can only indicate deviation from the convention e.g. prisoner voting rights
- COUNTER - Convention dictates that the government listens to both the E Court HR and the Supreme Court and acts accordingly e.g. banning prisoners from media interviews and Belmarsh case (Crime and Security Act 2001)
