The UK Constitution

• solution to power problems (power tends to be corrupt, so we need to be protected from those in power)
• without one the government could do whatever they want - oppressing minorities, violating freedom, tyrannising mass of people

Parliamentary Sovereignty: Sovereignty = supreme, unrestricted power; in this case, the absolute and unlimited authority of Parliament which can, in theory, make, repeal or amend any law

Uncodified: Not confined to one document

Unitary: ultimate power lies with a central body we sovereign; the opposite is a federal government (as seen in the US)

Fusion of Power: this is where the executive and the legislature branches of government intermingle

Flexible: Changes can take place without lengthy specialist procedure; the opposite is rigid

• Authoritive
• Entrenched
• Judicable
• "Higher Law" - binds all political institutions
• Diffucult to abolish
• Judiciary can declare when something is / isn`t constitutional

Pros

• Government kept in check (answerable to the judiciary)
• changing constitutional law is a complex procedure
• can provide people with something they can identify with
• provides security / protects rights
• organised (single source)
• neutral interpretation
• education / citizenship

Cons:

• Rigid - changing it is complex / diffucult
• government has limited power (answers to "higher law)
• changing consitiution to fit with modern society takes a long time
• Political Bias
• Unnecassary
• Judicial Tyranny

• Not authoritive
• Not entrenched
• Not judicible
• Constitutional and ordinary laws are of the same status
• Can be changed through normal process for enacting statute law
• Judges don`t have a legal standard against which things can be declared unconstitutional

Pros:

• Constitution can be easily changed
• Law = more efficient and flexible
• Parliament can make, unmake and amend any law it wishes, including the laws that affect the consitution

Cons:

• Judges can declare the actions of other bodies un/constitutional - more open to corruption
• Not really clear
• Can also limit personal freedom
• Less security than written constitution

We should:

• Will be in 1 place
• Would remove uncertainty about specific roles (monarchy)
• some say the current process is outdated
• Constrain executive dominance
• No seperation of power
• Could protect judiciary independence
• Key laws would be firmly established
• would be easier for courts to interpret what behaviour is lawful
• establish clearer values and structure of political system
• would prevent a constitutional crisis (e.g. hung parliament)

We Shouldn`t:

• Higher power would have more decision making right than the government
• With a constitution there is a lengthy process to change it (referendums)
• People misinterpret it causing corruption
• We`ve survived without one
• It hasn`t worked effectively in other countries
• Our "Westminster Model" claims this is not how we should work
• The current system works well, providing stability, liberty and reflects British values
• We have a strong and effective government without one
• Hard to find a constitution to suit everyone
• A written constitution doesn`t guarentee people`s rights (US, Zimbabwe and Russia)

Statute Law;

• single most important source
• Acts of Parliament (made by Parliament)
• Laws affecting powers / responsibilities of government or rights / freedom of people
• Prevails if it conflicts with a convention / common law
• More and more constitutional rules now have statutory basis

Conventions:

• Key unwritten element
• Non-legal and often lack clear, unambiguous definition - collective responsibilities of cabinet
• regularly observed practises can be ignored but are upheld to make politics workable

Royal Prerogative:

• Formal powers of the Crown which are performed by the PM and the executive branch of government

Common Law:

• Refers to a body of laws based on tradition, custom and precedent - also known as case law
• formed on basis of precedents set in previous cases - most civil rights laws begin this way
• sometimes viewed as judge made law
• created / refined on case-by-case basis in courts

Major Works of Authority and Constitutional Documents:

• Consult authors deemed as experts on some constitutional issues - interpret what it actually means
• many gaps in the constitution and incertain about how rules / principles should be applied
• not legally enforcable - they are only consulted so don`t have to always be followed / are only sometimes followed. thier status is up for debate

EU Law:

• Joined the EU in 1973 and must now incorporate EU laws and treaties into domestic laws
• Process of European integration has increased, making the EU more important
• EU law has a higher status than Statute law (in particular with regards to social and economic legislation)
• Form a significant addition of the constitution

Examples:

• Statute = Representation of Peoples Act 1918, 1928, 1969
• Convention = House of Commons
• EU = recent events
• Major Works of Authority and Constitutional Documents = Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1869)

Executive derived from the legislature:

• executive derived from, and can be removed by, the legislature
• opposite of US presidential system - strict separation of powers between the executive and the legislature

Fusion of Powers:

• ministers heading the executive also sit as part of the legislature at the same time
• until 2003 Lod Chancellor sat in all three branches, but this was changed under Labour`s programme of reform

Parliamentary Sovereingty:

• the three branches of government are unequal (the legislature is supreme)
• government ministers accountable to parliament which is supreme (unlike in the USA)

Unitary System:

• All power is concentrated in a single national institution (Parliament)
• all local / devolved government power exists only at the pleasure of national government - powers devolved into regions can be withdrawn (in reality - unlikely to happen)

Centralisation and Decentralisation:

• Centralisation - act of consolidating power under central contol
• Decentralisation - spread of power away from the centre to local branches / government
• unitary government - centralised
• modifications - devolution and considering giving power to regional assemblies

• doubts about accuracy and continuing relevance

3 alternatives:

• Political Sovereignty
• Popular Sovereignty
• Legal Sovereignty

Political Sovereignty:

• Parliament has not, and has never been politically sovereign. it doesn`t always have the power to do something due to consequences (for example - mass protests and public rebellion)

Constraints of Parliamentary Sovereignty:

• Pressure groups and public opinion
• international opinion (USA and EU)
• policies of international bodies (UN)

Popular Sovereignty:

• principle that supreme authority is vested in the people directly rather than in a representative institution
• there has been a shift from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty (e.g. elected devolved assemblies, Human Rights Act)

Legal Sovereignty:

• Parliament may no longer be legally sovereign
• as a result of EU membership (EU law precedes statute law)
• also implied by the idea that devolution has resulted in quasi-federalism reflected in the reluctance of parliament to challenge decisions made be devolved bodies

Yes:

• key to British liberal-democratic system (democratic representation)
• provides uniformity to law, tax and education
• Parliament still has the power to leave the EU and take back any lost powers
• Unites the electorate on election day
• House of Commons = bigger / has more authority to make laws

No:

• Parliament is no longer supreme law making body (EU law)
• Political = more morally justifiable
• external matters take control from Parliament
• referendums undermine sovereignty
• parliamentary power = limited
• popular sovereignty has more power

Parliamentary Sovereignty:

• Sovereignty = "Crown in Parliament"
• Form of legal sovereignty (make / unmake / repeal any law)

Rule of Law:

• traditionally seen as the alternative to a codified constitution - showing that, even in th absence of higher law, government is still subject to legal checks and constraints
• In short, government is not above the law

Parliamentary Government:

• UK constitutional structure based on a fusion of powers between Parliament and the executive
• Government / Parliament overlap / interlock
• Government, in effect, governs in and through Parliament

Constitutional Monarchy:

• monarchy remains constitutionally significant body within the UK
• `dignified` institution and still plays a vital role even if there is no meaningful political power
• role = promote popular allegiance and serve as a symbol of political unity above party policy
• monarch = right to be informed, consult, warn and encourage

EU Membership:

• membership of the EU has major implications on the constitution (on the role / significance of Parliament in making laws)
• sovereignty now bes understood as "parliamentary sovereignty within the context of EU membership"

Why reform?

• fears about parliamentary sovereignty and the impact of EU membership
• corruption and sleaze associated with the House of Commons
• fairness of the electoral system
• future of the House of Lords
• erosion of civil liberties
• increased number of unelected quangos

How is the constitution reformed?

• Cabinet and Parliamentary Committees
• Referendums
• investigatory Commission
• Act of Parliament
• EU law

Charter 88:

• written constitution
• elected second chamber (House of Lords)
• bill of rights
• reformed judiciary

Conservatives:

• traditionalists
• 1997 manifesto - "strength and stability of Constitution - the institutions, laws and traditions that bind us together as a nation"
• see danger in tampering with the constitution

Norton and Adonis:

• Norton - "strengthen existing framework, not destroy it"
• strenghtening of parliament
• abolishing / reducing quangos
• devolving power to local level
• Adonis - "Incremental reform to adapt Britain`s governing institutions to the times"

Centre-Left

• labour and liberal democrat working party discussed reform prior to 1997 General Election
• Labour - government is "centralised, inefficient and bureaucratic"
• Liberal Democrat - beleived in electoral reform and proportional representation

Positive:

• greater clarity of rights (HRA) / rights are protected by government (government = more accountable)
• House of Lords Reforms - more legitimate / have more power within the law making process (which is now more robust in the form of checks and balances)
• devolution is more democratic / people can get involved regionally

Negative:

• Changes to the House of Commons have been limited
• HRA fails to deal with the problems of central government having too much power (still relatively centralised)
• reforms were individual solutions to particular problems