Evaluate The View That The UK Constitution Should Be Codified And Entrenched.

Question 1

P1: Agree Too Easy To Change

Answer 1

1. The UK’s uncodified constitution is very flexible, allowing significant constitutional changes to be made by a simple parliamentary majority.This ease of amendment risks political interference and short-term decision-making, as seen with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, passed primarily for coalition political reasons but with potentially far-reaching effects.
2. Entrenchment would protect the constitution by requiring more robust procedures, such as supermajorities in both Houses of Parliament or a referendum, ensuring thorough debate and consensus before change.
3. Brexit illustrates the risk of easy constitutional change, as a fundamental shift (leaving the EU) was triggered by an advisory referendum with less than 50% of the total electorate support.
4. 26th Amendment (lowering the voting age to 18) took several years and widespread consensus to pass, illustrating the deliberate process of constitutional change. two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate plus ratification by three-quarters of the states to amend it.

Question 2

P1: Disagree Flexibility

Answer 2

1. Allows gradual evolution and adaptability to new political challenges and social needs.
   Over the past two centuries, the constitution has changed significantly, enabling democratic progress without the rigid constraints of codification.
2. New Labour’s reforms—such as removing most hereditary peers, introducing the Human Rights Act 1998, and creating the Supreme Court in 2005—show that major constitutional changes can be made through flexible, parliamentary means.
3. Codification and entrenchment risk freezing political power and constitutional arrangements in the form of a particular era’s values and prejudices, making future adaptations difficult.
4. US Constitution exemplifies such rigidity, as seen in controversial issues like the 2nd Amendment, which some argue contributes to ongoing gun violence yet remains almost impossible to amend despite public debate.

Question 3

P2: Agree Checks and Balances

Answer 3

1. Codifying the UK constitution could clearly define and limit the powers of government branches, improving accountability and responsiveness to Parliament, similar to the US system of separated powers and checks and balances. Parliament could gain stronger powers, such as an elected House of Lords or parliamentary vetoes on key decisions like ministerial appointments.
2. Empower the Supreme Court to strike down laws that violate constitutional principles, ensuring fairness and preventing abuses by the government. Judges would safeguard the constitution against potential authoritarian overreach or erosion of democratic rights.
3. The UK’s current system leaves key constitutional elements (e.g., voting rights under the Representation of the People Act 1918) vulnerable, since they are ordinary Acts of Parliament that can be altered or repealed by simple majorities. Elections Act 2022 introduced voter ID requirements widely seen as politically motivated to restrict certain voters.
4. The reliance on unwritten conventions risks abuse, illustrated by Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of Parliament to limit Brexit scrutiny, which threatened parliamentary sovereignty.

Question 4

P2: Disagree Sufficient Checks and Balances

Answer 4

1. Already offers strong protections for democracy through conventions and judicial oversight, despite not being formally entrenched.Conventions, though unwritten, are difficult to break without significant backlash, which helps maintain democratic norms. 2019 prorogation of Parliament for political reasons provoked widespread public outrage and was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court’s judicial review ruling the government acted ultra vires.
2. The UK’s flexible constitution allowed swift emergency measures during COVID-19, including temporary restrictions on human rights, showing adaptability to unforeseen crises.The uncodified constitution also enables governments with parliamentary majorities to implement their manifesto policies efficiently, unlike in codified systems where legislative gridlock can occur.
3. 2010 coalition government introduced the Cabinet Manual to adapt conventions like collective responsibility and fixed-term parliaments, demonstrating evolutionary constitutional reform.
4. US crucial issues like climate change legislation have struggled to pass due to entrenched partisan conflicts and separation of powers.

Question 5

P3: Agree Human Rights

Answer 5

1. Codifying and entrenching the UK constitution, especially through a new British Bill of Rights, could better protect human rights by making them legally inviolable and harder for government or Parliament to override.HRA is limited because parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can repeal or amend it by simple majority.
2. Illegal Migration Bill (2023) included a section 19 declaration acknowledging possible incompatibility with the HRA and international law, yet was pursued anyway.
3. Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 allowed deportations to Rwanda despite concerns over safety and human rights, explicitly limiting judicial review and permitting ministers to ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.
4. Supreme Court strong judicial review powers to strike down unconstitutional laws, as seen in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation) and Roe v. Wade (abortion rights, until recently overturned).

Question 6

P3: Disagree HRA

Answer 6

1. Give too much power to unelected, unaccountable judges to interpret and “police” the constitution, forcing them into political decisions about rights that ideally should be made by democratically accountable Parliament.
2. Parliament generally responds to judicial findings, showing effective cooperation; for example, after A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) where part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was ruled incompatible with human rights, Parliament amended the law via the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
3. The HRA also promotes a “rights-based culture” by raising public awareness and embedding rights in political discourse.
   Parliamentary scrutiny, including the House of Lords. In 2005, both Commons and Lords rejected Tony Blair’s proposal to extend detention of terror suspects to 90 days without charge, forcing a compromise at 28 days.
4. Controversies such as Bush v. Gore (2000) and debates over Supreme Court decisions on abortion (Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson) illustrate tensions between judicial power and democratic accountability. Undermine democratic decision-making by shifting power from elected officials to judges.