‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose.’ Discuss There is much debate whether or not the British constitution is fit for purpose in today’s society. A constitution is a set of laws and principles that governs a country. The UK constitution is uncodified which automatically means it is not fit for purpose. It is not found in one authoritative document and it has some unwritten parts, this makes it flexible and therefore not fit for purpose which is to govern. There are several arguments arguing against the above statement and they will be explored later on in this essay.
Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK The current constitution of the UK is uncodified and the UK’s long period of unbroken democratic rule is often seen as evidence of the strength of its constitutional system. The UK’s constitution is flexible and easy to change, this is useful as it is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend. It is a flexible constitution because it is not entrenched, the advantage of this is that it is up to date and relevant and it can adapt to changing political and social circumstances. If the UK’s constitution was to become codified then it would become more rigid because higher law is more difficult to change than statute law. Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment.
Therefore if parliamentary sovereignty was an Act of Parliament it would be possible for Parliament to repeal it and destroy the principle. However just because the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is embodied in common law does not make this a more important source of the British constitution than statute law. This is because common
It underlies the UK constitutions and limits the government. The separation of powers in the UK constitution is blurred e.g. the 90 odd members of government are in both legislature and the executive and the lord chancellor sits in all three. It’s the lack of separation that allows us to make fasts decisions however it does also give individuals too much power. It can be argued that the UK constitution is too flexible.
Such judicial action is rare. It is time, say campaigners, that these powers are defined and limited in a constitution. Their extent shouldn’t be left in the hands of judges who too often tend to favour state power against individuals. Nor should parliament be denied the right to exercise some control over such government
This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments. Parliamentary sovereignty is made up of Mass electorate, Party system, referendums, pressure groups, international agreements and treaties, the European Union (EU), the European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR). One factor that argues that the parliamentary sovereignty in the UK have been devolved, this argument comes from the fact
The delegate model of representation poses a threat to the form of representative democracy used on the UK as the public will have more say on issues which undermines the Burkean model. Likewise it undermines parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is already bypassed by the government, referendums only make it worse. An example of this is when Labour were voted in and in their manifesto contained a referendum on devolution however the result didn’t turn out in their favour in contradiction of the government, further undermining their power. Moreover the public may not be well advised/trusted to make decisions on issues such as capital punishment as the polls show a majority in favour of it, however MPs can see the faults in the use of the death penalty and vote against it. Also the public may not be educated on some of the deeper issues such as the role of central banks in relation to a single currency.
Parliament can still undermine any of the laws which implement these changes, therefore these developments do not fully undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore, parliament is supreme; unless it involves the European law then the European Union will take the power. Secondly, the effect that the European Union has had on parliamentary Sovereignty. The European Union has meant that parliament is not the ultimate power for the UK, if a British law brings up conflict with the European Law, for example employment law, then it would be the European Law that would stand. But Britain does have the choice to stay in the European Union or not, as parliament are allowed to leave at any given time.
This has been given a lot of criticism over the years as many other countries, not only the United States, have also now switched to codified constitution although the UK has failed to evolve. The reason a codified constitution has an advantage over this system of an uncodified constitution and also outweighs its disadvantages is because it doesn’t have as many risks and is a lot more stable. This is because codified constitutions can’t be changed by parliament and the government if they suddenly feel like changing it for their own benefit, so if a law is put in to place to protect people’s rights or stop the government from overpowering then it could be very much be changed or modified which could lead to more problems in the future. On the other hand, the fact that a codified constitution can not be adapted is also one of its biggest disadvantages. Since a codified constitution is already written, over years this could become a problem.
They feel that the executive branch holds too much power, and having too much power could in fact be very bad and a threat. Anti-federalist were not as organized as the federalist, and didn’t take into consideration that checks and balances and such stop one branch from becoming too powerful. I learned more about he Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments of the constitution that were made limit the power of the United States Federal Government. This was mainly maid to protect citizens.