The consituition

• Sources of the UK Constitution

  • Statute law
  • Common law
  • Conventions
  • Works of authority
  • EU laws/treaties
• Statute law

  Law made by Parliament, overrides other laws (EU laws excepted) due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
• Examples of statute law

  • European Community Act of 1972
  • Human Rights Act of 1998
• Common law

  'Judge-made law' - laws based on precedent and tradition
• Example of common law

  • Powers contained in the Royal Prerogative
• Conventions

  Non-legal established rules of conduct and behaviour - what is 'expected'
• Examples of conventions

  • Monarch granting Royal Assent
  • Appointment of the Prime Minister
  • Collective responsibility
• Works of authority


  Works written by scholars seen as experts in the constitution - they outline what is 'correct' for the UK constitution
• Examples of works of authority

  • Bagehot's The English Constitution (1867)
  • Dicey's An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)
• EU laws/treaties


  The UK is subject to European laws and treaties, and will remain so until formally exiting the EU
• Examples of EU laws/treaties

  • Treaty of Rome (1957)
  • Treaty of Lisbon (2009)
• Parliamentary sovereignty


  • There is no codified constitution for judges to use to challenge it
  • Statute laws outrank other laws
  • Parliament cannot bind its successors (no law that is made cannot be unmade)
• Rule of law


  The principle that the law applies to everyone, even those in government
• Under Labour, regional assemblies were established with different voting systems, giving the UK constitution a more representative and democratic nature
• Devolution


  Regional assemblies were established, following referendums on their introduction, transferring some powers away from the UK Parliament, although Parliament retains overall sovereignty
• Human Rights Act, 1998


  This established fundamental rights in law for the first time, giving judges more power to protect human rights and challenge government actions, although the Act could be amended or set aside by government
• Constitutional Reform Act, 2005


  This created the Supreme Court, which replaced the law lords as the highest court of appeal in the UK, making the judiciary more independent from government
• Fixed Term Parliaments Act, 2011


  This set the date of the general election as five years from the previous one, removing a key power of the PM, although it can be overridden with 2/3 of the Commons' approval or if the government is defeated on a vote of no confidence
• Further devolution gave the Welsh Assembly more law-making powers and the Scottish Parliament additional powers, triggering proposals for 'English votes for English laws'
• Arguments for a codified Constitution


  • It will educate and inform
  • Conventions are too weak
  • It would protect the separation of powers and an independent judiciary
• The Human Rights Act (1998) has raised general awareness of rights and given UK citizens a clear list of rights that can be defended in UK courts, although they are not fundamental law and the UK Supreme Court cannot strike down laws that undermine them
• Conventions are not often broken, offer a degree of flexibility, and are arguably inevitable, as they also exist in countries with codified constitutions
• The strength of many conventions in the UK is evident by how rarely they are broken - they often stand the test of time and are respected and upheld
• Separation of powers


  It would protect the independence of the judiciary
• The House of Lords can only delay bills, and has even more limited power over 'money bills'
• The Supreme Court cannot strike down laws due to Parliamentary sovereignty and the UK's lack of fundamental laws
• The argument for separation of legislature and executive tends to face the prospect of gridlock, and an entrenched constitution might lead to judicial activism
• Any attempt to weaken the government's influence in the House of Commons, or to strengthen the House of Lords, could make it much harder for elected governments to carry out their manifesto
• A codified constitution would also politicise the judiciary, which would need to interpret the language of the static, codified constitution, and determine whether laws are constitutional
• This could lead to accusations of judicial activism, where unelected judges are accused of using questionable interpretations of the constitution to promote their own political agenda
• The US Supreme Court can strike down laws that undermine constitutional rights, but in the UK, our Supreme Court cannot strike down laws that are 'unconstitutional' because we lack a codified constitution and because Parliament is sovereign, able to pass or repeal any law
• A new codified constitution would be able to make sense of many recent incomplete reforms, as well as any unintended consequences - like, for example, the West-Lothian Question
• Arguing that the UK constitution should be left as it is, because it has served us well for so long, arguably overlooks the fact that many citizens, such as those campaigning for Scottish independence, already feel that, in spite of recent reforms, the UK's historic constitutional settlement no longer works
• Arguments for retention of unwritten Constitution

  • Tried, tested and durable (no significant constitutional upheaval since 1688 unlike France)
  • Clear political leadership through strong government (dealing rapidly with handguns post Dunblane unlike US)
  • Flexibility (reflecting social attitudes e.g. Abortion and homosexuality)
  • Adequate protection of civil rights and liberties (Common, statue and HRA note Belmarsh detainees)
  • Elected politicians hold upper hand over unaccountable judges (e.g. BAE investigation halted by Blair)
• Arguments against retention of unwritten Constitution

  • Undemocratic and outdated (continued role of Hereditary Peers)
  • Excessive centralisation of power within Westminster and also within the executive (Parliamentary sovereignty and devolution - abolition GLC 1980s)
  • Civil rights and liberties too weak (HRA can be abolished and government can derogate e.g. 28 day detention)
  • Too ambiguous (complexity leads to ignorance unlike US Constitution)
  • Judiciary safeguard against elective dictatorship (US striking down legislation by Supreme Court e.g. Guantanamo Bay)
• Arguments for the Westminster model

  • Efficiency: The Westminster model is often praised for its efficiency in decision-making due to the fusion of executive and legislative branches
  • Accountability: The model emphasizes the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the government is accountable to the legislature
  • Adaptability: The flexibility of the model allows for rapid responses to changing circumstances
  • Strong Executive: The model empowers the executive branch, which can lead to strong and stable governance, especially during times of crisis
• Arguments against the Westminster model

  • Lack of Checks and Balances: Critics argue that the fusion of powers in the Westminster model leads to a lack of effective checks and balances on the government's power
  • Democratic Deficit: Some argue that the model concentrates too much power in the hands of the executive, potentially undermining democratic principles by limiting the role of the legislature and judiciary
  • Majoritarianism: The model is criticized for favoring majority rule over minority rights
  • Inertia: The model may struggle to adapt to changing societal norms and values due to its traditional and often rigid structures