UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
There are many arguments as to why we should or shouldn’t have more referenda in the UK. Both arguments are fair and it is simply a matter of opinion. There are also many reasons as to why we should have more referenda in the UK. Referenda are a device of direct democracy, giving the public some decision-making of the country. This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party.
There many arguments for and against Britain having a codified constitution but one could say that they are too rigid for such a time of social change. Firstly, a codified constitution is limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Both of which were shown in Blair and Thatcher’s Governments. It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’.
Introduced by government when we need to change our constitution or make a decision on a controversial issue where government needs approval of electorate. If the party in power's mandate was not very big, the party didn't have enough support. If a Referendum is held makes the government look stronger. Extending the wider use of referendums will affect democracy in the UK, this essay will explain if using referendums more often will improve democracy in the UK. Increasing the use of referendums will help make the system more like a direct democracy.
As well as there being changes for the English culture there was also a lot of continuity in their lifestyle such as the Anglo-Saxon style of long hair and bushy beards and moustaches. Changes were going to be inevitably made as their was a new leader of the land but there were still a lot of cultural and social policies which stuck and in reference to the question, this challenges whether there was a major change. A massive change that occurred was the expansion of cities such as London and this was due to French markets and the Norman building programme, by 1086 there was 100,000 burgesses in England and this signifies a major change during Williams kingship. Culturally, there was change and continuum as firstly there was a large number of castles built all around England and towns such as Oxford and Norwich suffered house clearing to allow room for the castles. There was also a continuity in culture though as there was a rich tradition of written English dating back to the 890’s and this survived through the Peterbrough book showing that not everything was changing during William’s reign.
There are arguments for and against the introduction of a codified constitution in the UK in this essay I will examine both sides of the argument and make a final judgement as to whether the UK constitution should remain uncodified. The UK constitution is well renowned for its flexibility in comparison to the rigidity of codified constitutions like in the USA. Uncodified constitutions are easier to amend because they are not entrenched like codified constitutions. The flexibility of the constitution is an advantage as laws can be implemented rapidly in response to a major crisis. For example the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 in immediate response the UK government made the possession of hand guns illegal this was possible because of the flexibility of the UK constitution.
However the European parliament can have a negative effect on a country as for them to change legislation they have to speak to other members of the government so if a law does go through and they do not agree with it, it may still go through as a law and they won’t be able to do anything about it. Parliament (Central Government, House of Commons and House of Lords) There are 3 types of parliament there are central government, House of Commons and House of Lords they all have different roles and responsibilities. Central government- Central government is the government of a nation-state. This is the same thing as a federal government which may mean they have some type of power at a certain level which would then be argued about
This system tends to favour and give more opportunities to smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who currently feel that the first past the post system is unfair towards them and numerous other parties. The system also tends to result in a coalition government being formed, which in some respects can be seen as a good thing, as proportional amounts of power are spread evenly between parties according to the amount of votes received. Northern Ireland, Germany, Australia and France all use different proportional systems at this current time however it is also a key issue in the UK at the moment, as we can see from the recent AV referendum which was held this year. Subsequently it was the decision of the Liberal Democrats to hold the election. Proportional systems are already currently being used in some parts of the UK, and is quite successful where it is in place.
Why was the right to vote give to more and more people between 1867 and 1918? In 1867 Britain wasn't a very democratic country. There were many reasons for why Britain became more democratic during the 19th and early 20th centuries. With each reform the franchise was slightly increased. Looking back we can see that this was due to a lot of different pressures.
LSTD503 Criminal Justice Process THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: A NEED FOR CHANGE Sophia D. Flowers-Hollis Spring 2014 The Exclusionary Rule: A Need for Change The exclusionary rule has been a highly debated topic within our legal system as it has come into conflict with potential evidence that could possibly convict an individual to a jail sentence. Those who are against the exclusionary act believe that the act has no power in stopping unwarranted searches anyway and what the rule mainly does is let criminals go. Those who are for the exclusionary rule say that this is a protective right and is a right that is guaranteed to us through the constitution and should never be taken away. I am against the exclusionary rule. My research paper will argue that the exclusionary rule needs to be changed and although it is a right, federal and certain state laws should not be included with the exclusionary rule.