(c) Assess the arguments in favour of introducing a codified constitution for the UK. (25 marks) Draft A constitution is a statement of how the political system works and contains the limits to government power and the rights of the citizens. Britain does not have a real constitution but we do have an unwritten, uncodified constitution. There are many arguments for having a codified constitution for Britain. The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected.
Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate. Moreover, that is not written in The Constitution is the fact that Washington appointed cabinet members to help him run the
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
The first was the defeat of the referendum on Quebec sovereignty, called by the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque. Trudeau campaigned vigorously against the separatists and played a significant role in the victory of the 'No' vote in the Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty Association, 1980. In the wake of that victory, Trudeau pushed strongly for an accord on a new Canadian constitution. Trudeau needed the co-operation of all the provinces to achieve in making the constitution. Negotiations last for 18 months during which dissenting ministers, along with rulings from the Supreme Court and various provincial courts, threatened to foil the efforts.
The Compact Theory of Confederation The provincial rights movement led to the “compact theory of Confederation.” Promoted by many provincial premiers, it contended that Confederation was a contract or a compact or a treaty among the original signatory provinces, and could not be revised without their consent. Although not historically or legally correct, this theory had much support in provincial governments and Quebec. It also had implications for developing a made-in-Canada constitutional amending formula: which parts of the constitution could be amended with how much provincial consent? An alternate version of the theory was that Confederation was a compact between English and French, and could not be revised without the consent of both groups. The implication of that was often taken to be that Quebec represented the French, and whether or not the other provinces had a veto over constitutional amendments, Quebec did!
There are many things, words, or people that may try and define Canada and its political culture between the 1990's and present, but to be truly honest one must come to the conclusion that unless you intend to write more than a few measly sentences, you may not even come close. Now when many people try to describe the political culture of Canada they think of three things that have shaped the politics of our nation recently, the separatist movement in Quebec, the emergence of conservatism in the west, and the blow the Liberals have taken due to the emergence of the Sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry. These three things, all encompassed into a single nation of politics is what shapes our nation today, and maybe even defines the term of Canadian political culture. Since the days when the first English - French confrontation happened in the recently discovered Canada, political culture in Quebec has always been different from the rest of the country. The French-Canadians have always been looking for and perhaps maybe pushing towards a separate and sovereign country of their own.
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
o BC, ALB, SASK, MAN. o Physical, ideological, political separation – Ottawa is just TOO far o Reform Party – Preston Manning (Alberta) voice of The West and their interests (gains enough political power to split the voters in Canada – official opposition in 1997 ▪ Unites the Right – Progressive Conservatives + Canadian Alliance (old Reform Party) = Conservative Party of Canada ▪ So where is Stephen Harper from? o Separation? - natural resources would mean it could function as independent state I DO NOT OWN ANY RIGHTS OF THIS FILE. THIS IS ONLY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE ONLY.
Who gets in? a) Summary b) Theoretical approach c) What I have learned d) Previously held biases revealed in the paper e) Conclusion The Canadian states official public pronouncement, Rhetoric’s with respect to immigration objectives and benefits are very often not matched by Reality, what actually happens. The Canadian state develops its immigration policies to address what it hopes it can control but forgetting that other forces like global trade, Canadian economic performance and transnational migrant’s network play a significant role in determining what actually takes place and as a result, actually policy outcomes are often significantly different from those advanced in rhetoric. The state focus more on the
In order to assess how constitutional conventions are recognised and enforced within the UK system of government, firstly, will require a look at the different definitions of what amounts to a constitutional convention, and to discuss their function or purpose, within the U.K's constitution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to identify and consider the different examples of constitutional conventions and also examine their characteristics. As way of a starting point, conventions according to AV Dicey are defined as: "conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power…are not really laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the 'conventions of the constitution', or constitutional morality…" This definition concentrates on what conventions are supposed to achieve. However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices.