the uk constitution Flashcards
main themes of constitutional development?
-transferral of power from monarch to parliament
-increasing the rights of citizens
beginnings of the constitution?
1215 Magna Carta, no one including the king is above the law, sets out the right for free trial for all free men
Bill of Rights, monarch’s power is reliant on the consent of parliament, and parliamentary privilege (freedom of speech in parliament), free elections
Act of settlement- only a protestant could be a monarch, gave control over the lines of succession
initiail constitutional developments?
acts of parliament,
1911 parliament act prevented lords from delaying money bills and other bills for more than 2 years
1949 parliament act, reduced time lords could delay bills for(to a year)
1972 european communities act which entered britain into european economic community later known as eu(thus gave eu law precedence over uk law in case of conflict)
- brexit later focused on repealing this act.
main principles of the traditional uk constitution (nature of the uk constitution)
-unentrenched: the uk constitution can easily be changed(by an act of parliament or shift in convention)
-uncodified- not written down in one single document, made up of multiple sources
-parliamenrary sovereignty- parliament is supreme, ultimate authority sits with it as the representative of the people,
no parliament can bind its successor so it can repeal acts passed by previous parliaments
it is also supreme legislative body so legislative cant be changed or struck down by judiciary or executive
-unitary-all power centralised in parliament in westminister (this has been diluted due to devolution, many scholars refer to uk as union state)
-rule of law; everyone is subject to law and held accountable to it, everyone entitled to fair trial, for rule of law to work; judiciary must be independent of political interference
5 main sources of the UK constitution?
1) statute law: all legislation created by parliament, most important due to principle of parliamentary sovereignty so it can override any other source
(constitutional are the ones dealing with nature of politics, government or rights of citizens)
example- 2005 constitutional reform act creating the supreme court (parliament legislation)
0r 1918 representation of peoples act, all men and some women to vote
2- common law is made up fo customs and judicial precedent, judicial decisions clarifying the meaning of statute or making rulings in the absence of statute(constitutional principles like royal prerogative are part of common law)
3- conventions are customs and principles accepted as a way of doing things, e.g. convention that prime minister is the leader of the largest party in parliament, they can be removed or made permanent by statute law, e.g. 2011 fixed term parliament act: put into statute law the convention that government should resign if defeated in a vote of no confidence
4- authoritative works, e.g. walter bagehot’s ‘the english constitution’ books or wrtitten guides to the working of the written constitution (widely respect but not legally binding)
5- treates- agreements that have been signed with other countries, most important treaty uk constitution is european communities act 1972 entering britain into ecc (eu)
1992 maastricht treaty established european union
(uk gov negotiated a treaty for uk to leave eu)
why was there demand for reform?
- people wanted to modernise british institutions
-people had growing distrust in traditional institutions
-growing demands for devolution in scotland - demand to fix problems in north ireland
reform in 1997?
new labour came into power in 1997 under tony blair, offering new constitutional reforms in his policies
1999 house of lords reform?
1999 house of lords act
aim of act- to make the house of lords a mainly appointed chamber
actiion- removed all but 92 hereditary peers
outcome - lords became a mainly appointed cha,ber, peers were thus appointed based on merit (as opposed to birth thus the removal of hereditary peers)
argument that the house of lords reform did enough
removal of hereditary peers modernised the house of lords, thus making it more legitimate and professional
no party has a majority
an unelected house allows experts to be appointed, e.g. lord norton a politics professor and constitutional expert,
those representing underrepresented groups in society can be elected, e.g. Lord Bird an ex homeless man, and founder of the ‘Big Issue’ representing homeless people- a group which is unrepresented
appointing life peerages(can use title for rest of life but cannot pass on), (appointed by the crown nominated by the prime minister) - they do not need to worry about elections or removal from office if they are unpopular with their party or other small group of constituents- this allows them to consider long term interests of their country
arguemnt house of lords reform was not sufficient enough
- still 92 hereditary peers remaining which is outdated in a meritocratic society
-26 bishops but no representation of other religions
- party leaders can still make political appointments with house of lords
-house of lords remains unelected despite still having influence on law making and holding government to account
the chamber is large and very costly,over 800 peers, makes it second largest legislative chamber in the world e.g 2017 burns report called for reduction in size for house of lords and for term limits of its members
why were referendums held for devolution
held in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in 1997-8 in which the people voted for powers to be devolved to new regional assemblies.
brief overview of devolution?
In 1998 the Scotland Act, Northern Ireland Act and Government of Wales Act established the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Welsh Assembly.
- had been a growing demand for Scottish independence
- need to unite the unionist and nationalist parties in Northern Ireland.
argument that devolution did enough
good friday agreement and devolution to northern ireland transformed situation in northern ireland
(eval- until power sharing agreement in jan 2017 - the two parties were working together)
more devolution needed in wales?
multiple pieces of legislation devolving further powers to wales since 1998, 2006, 2014, 2017
increased demand for devolution as there was an imbalance in powers given in 1998 as wales gained fewer powers than scotland
so the welsh nationalist movement had been growing, demand for further devolution continues
more devolution needed in scotland?
devolution did not stem the demand for scottish independence
2014- held a scottish independence referendum, narrowly won by unionits,
(snp now more popular and electorally successful than in 1998)
also further devolution to scotalnd in 2016
more devolution needed in northern ireland?
since 2016 eu referendum, ongoing discussion on how brexit will work for ireland
northern ireland shares border with republic of ireland which is part of the eu
northern ireland act 1998, needs to be amended as part of the brexit process (causing possible conflict in ireland)
more devolution needed in england?
for england- west lothian question, scottish mps being able to vote in house of commons on matters only affecting england, english mps have no say in devolved scottish matters
barnett formula used to determine amount of funding given to per head,- given to each part of the uk- out of date as it was devised 1978 (scotland wales and northern ireland receive more than england per head)
what is the human rights act
The 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.
what did the human rights act contain
how does echr influence hra
freedoms in echr include, freedoms to life, freedom to fair trial, of expression and from discrimination among many others
echr: requires state to hold free and fair elections, abolish death penalty, preserve family life and give foreigners same rights as all citizens in the state
how does the human rights act influence the supreme court
hra means any public body cannot act in a way that would break with the convention, judiciary must make rulings that are compatible with it
supreme court, can strike down secondary legislation incompatible with hra
(for primary legislation they can only use doctrine of incompatability which urges parliament to change the statue- due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty)
argument that hra has been sufficient enough
fundamental rights of all british citizens clearly laid out in one accessible piece of legislation (codified)
example- 8 fold increase in number of human rights cases and claims brought to high court after hra passed
hra was not sufficient reform
conservatives resent link of european court of human rights to strasbourg - wanted to replance hra with british bill of rights- arguing it define rights more narrowly
despite hra, government can still restrict the rights of individuals, e.g 2005- gov introduced control orders. allowing authorites to control movement of suspected terrorists
(to do this they declared an exemption from article 5 of hra for all those who fall under suspicion)
what was 2005 constitutional reform act?
The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act created a separate Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal in the UK. Before this, the UK’s senior judges sat in the House of Lords (known as the Law Lords).
how did the 2005 constitutional reform act cause judicial reform
creating a separate supreme court:
-separated the government and the judiciary
-formed a supreme court separating parliament from judiciary
-act reformed appointment process for senior judicial appointments
2005 constitutional reform act affecting chancellors?
act split role of lord chancellor into 3 different roles
(previously role was to be a member of gov, speaker in house of lords, head of judiciary with power to appoint judges)
now- lord chancellor is just a government role with lord speaker presiding over house of lords, lord chief justice as head of judiciary- these reforms made judiciary more important
2005 constitutional reform act on supreme court-
supreme court made to replace law lords as uk’s highest court of appeal
this reform separated parliament from judiciary
2005 constitutional reform act on appointments
before reform: senior judicial appointment made by prime minister and lord chancellor (political figures)
act established judicial appointments commission- appointing candidates solely on legal qualifications and ability
- gov makes final decisions on appointments but must be approved by jac
argument that constitutional reform act did enough
- established clear separation of 3 powers, preventing abuse of power
-judiciary physically and constitutionally separate from executive and legislature allowing for greater judicial independence- this strengthens the rule of law
argument constitutional refrom act was not sufficient enough
supreme court weaker than its counter parts in most other liberal democracies(that are codified constitutions) thus cant strike down legislation as that would destroy parliamentary sovereignty
composition of supreme court is not diverse, (the group they have to choose from is not diverse either)