Supporters would argue that referendums should be used in the UK. This is for many reasons, such as allowing the public to have control over decision making. In doing so, making that decision is far more representative because it would be the popular choice, therefore making it far more legitimate. Also, because they’re secret ballots it means the voters can be non-partisan furthermore granting the final outcome to be a more justifiable choice due to f the vast amount of voters. In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making.
This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected. If we had a written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights, as they have in America, we would feel safer and more sure that we would be protected from governments that wish to take too much power. We have lost many of our rights in the UK and this is because we do not have a written Bill of Rights and because government and Parliament have too much uncontrolled power. Another argument is that the people of the UK would feel more patriotic and identify more with politics if there was a written and codified constitution as they have in the USA. Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it.
Although, on the other hand the soveriegnty of parliament does widely interfere with the judicarys ability to protect civil liberties in britain. Acts of parliament are binding on everyone within the UK including the supreme court. The soveriegn status and power of Parliament puts it above the judicary. This means that if a ruling is passed and the government do not approve they are able to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 'Prevention of Terrorism Act'.
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
When looked at in comparison to an entrenched constitution it seems better as in an entrenched system, parliament would be unable to pass such reforms so easily as entrenching something makes it incredibly hard to change. On the other side of the argument, many would say that due to the UK having a constitution whereby the head of Parliament is also the Head of the executive and also with the government mostly having a majority in the House of Commons, it means that the Prime Minister can pass through any legislation that they really want to pass. This could be seen undemocratic of the UK. Moreover, due to the Parliamentary Act of 1949, the House of Lords are only able to delay legislation for one year before it becomes automatically passed. This means that the House of Lords are unable to act as the judiciary in rejecting and checking unwanted bills.
When the Labour government implemented these laws they protected traditional parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike Germany or the USA where judges can annul legislations that are found to be in breach of the human rights act. In the UK however judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility which sends the legislation back to parliament so that they can make changes to suit the HRA. It is difficult to declare on this subject whether or not there have been enough reforms on the Human Rights Act as through one viewpoint it is important to sometimes evade Human Rights to catch potential terrorists on the other hand millions of people have had to sacrifice their right to private life as has been found with the major scandal of NSA spying on internet records. Some people may argue that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear however people still should be able to have
The filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure that allows one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal and thus the debate on the bills can be extended. Therefore, it can be interpreted as a tool that provides not only compromise but also obstruction. The two parties in the Congress have become more polarized and the majority party are more likely to introduce legislation that the minority party might not accept. Under those circumstances, the minority party can use the filibuster to check the majority party, promoting real debate and compromise to find the common ground with some on the other side. However, the filibuster can block the legislation process if it is not used properly.
Limited government's responsibility and gave the individual convinced rights that neither the government nor majority could infringe on. The Constitution was initially written without the Bill of Rights and many Founding Fathers would not sign it since they feared that the federal government would be too powerful. It is important because each citizen should know the background of each rule in their country and the history between the decisions that the leaders and politicians made through the past. In conclusion, the bill of rights has a huge importance and impact in the life of an US citizen. It l help you to be politically active; helps to address significant issues and show the history of the systems through decisions as giving the states more defined rights.
The answer may vague because it contains advantages and disadvantages where UK has written constitution and unwritten constitution. First, if UK agree to codify the British constitution, the advantages will have few arguments as follow: Accessibility to law. It will easier to educate the citizen as it relatively detailed, leading to certainty and clarity. Citizen will be aware of the law. In addition, due to accessibility to law, human rights of citizen will be strongly emphasized in results, citizen has the legally rights to enforce individual rights without any barrier even against the state.