Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK now needs an entrenched and codified constitution. Flashcards
Intro
Uncodified and unentrenched; can be repealed with a simple Act of parliament rather than protected to a greater extent.
Key debate is if it should be codified to single document and entrenched to cannot easily be changed.
Disagree
As the flexibility of uncodified constitution has allowed British political system to evolve gradually + adapt to unusual circumstances when necessary.
The constitution has evolved a great deal over past 2 centuries, making Britain democratic system, and New Labour’s programme demonstrates that major progressive changes can be made.
For example, Labour removed the majority of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 to improve rights protection in the UK and created the Supreme Court in the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act.
These delivered on New Labour programme of constitutional change that aimed to democratise, modernise, decentralise and further the protection of rights.
If the UK constitution was codified and entrenched, these changes would’ve been a lot more difficult and took more time.
Agree
Key argument to codify + entrench constitution is it would better protect HR in the UK, potentially by introducing a new British Bill of Rights that would be entrenched and therefore couldn’t be infringed upon by the government and other public bodies.
It can be argued that this is necessary as current HRA doesn’t protect rights effectively - parliamentary sovereignty means; judges can’t legally compel parliament to make changes to laws and the fact it is not entrenched means the HRA could be repealed by a simple act of parliament.
The Illegal Migration Bill, for example, was introduced by Home Secretary Suella Braverman on 7th March 2023 with a section 19 note stating that there was a likelihood the provisions of the bill would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act and international law (The European Convention on Human Rights), but that the government wanted to proceed with it nonetheless.
An entrenched Bill of Rights would also prevents governments from overturning rights legislation in order to remove rights, as the Conservative Party has often been criticised for attempting to do in their proposals to replace the Human Rights Act with an unentrenched British Bill of Rights.
It can be argued that a codified Bill of Rights would also give citizens a greater understanding and attachment to their rights as citizens.
Agree- too flexible
P- un codified nature allows fundamental changes to be made with just an act of parliament.
