Codified And Entrenched

Question 1

Theme 1-
For codified

Answer 1

British constitution is too easy to amend, which means that parliament can pass any law w just a simple majority.

E.f. FTPA 2011 was arguably a short term political fix for coalition gov that had the unintended, long term effect of preventing minority govs from calling an election. Ensure lib dems that Camron won’t call a snap election, allowing for stable governance

Entrenchment can protect the constitution from political interference from an overarching exec as there would be high supermajority thresholds in order to change the constitution.

E.g. Brexit wouldn’t have been so easy to change on the basis of an advisory referendum whose support commanded the support of less than 50% of the franchise.

Question 2

Theme 1-
Against

Answer 2

Flexibility allows constitution to evolve to meet societal changes and unusual circumstances when necessary.

Made uk politics more democratic e.g. NL got rid of hereditary peers and introduced HRA 1998 to improve rights protection

Unwritten British constitution continues to adapt to changing needs of the nation
E.g. after the dunblane massacre, the firearms act 1997 was passed.

If was codified it would be hard to change as seen in the US, where the constitution has been criticised for allowing thousands to die through school shootings under the 2nd amendment.

Codification is a highly complex process that could deter governments from governing the country as there would be great disagreements on how this new constitution should look like

Question 3

Theme 2-sufficient protections for democracy
For codified

Answer 3

Allows parliament to better check and constrain the exec which can be done by creating different branches whic allows them to check the power of each other

E.g. HoL can become elected whih gives them more legitimacy and power, parliament can hold veto powers on certain issues e.g. appointment of cabinet ministers

Uncodied con can be easily exploited by govs that go against democracy e.g. bojo proroguing of parliament to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of his hard Brexit deal- threatened sovereignty of parliament

Question 4

Theme 2-sufficient protections for democracy
Against

Answer 4

Current uncodified nature does offer sufficient protections for democracy

SC ensures that the conventions aren’t exploited e.g. when bojo prorogued parliaments it generated public backlash which led to the SC to use their judicial review to rule that the gov has acted ultra vires.

If there r greater checks and balances it will lead to leg gridlock and failures to pass legislation to deal with emergencies whcih supporters of the uks current uncodied constitution argue is v effective at doing so.

British voters can be confident that gov elected w a majority can implement their manifesto pledges unlike in the US where it is very hard to pass legislation thru congress e.g. CC

Question 5

Theme 3- protect HR
For

Answer 5

Introduce a new British bill of rights that would be entrenched and couldn’t be infringed upon by the gov and other public bodies.

Current HRA doesn’t protect rights as parliamentary sovereignty means that judges can legally force parliament to make changes to the law.

E.g. illegal migration bill (Suella) had a section 19 note stating that there was a likelihood the provisions of the bill would be incompatible w the HRA and ECHR but the gov wanted to proceed w it nonetheless.

Rwanda bill, international law must be put aside to allow deportation of asylum seekers, gives ministers the power to ignore emergency rulings in strasbourg

Shows how govs can threaten rights in the UK by preventing SC using judicial review

Question 6

Theme 3- protect HR
Against

Answer 6

HRA does provide a robust framework for protecting HR as it helped develop a ‘right based culture’ where all laws must be compliant w the act and judges can label earlier acts to become incompatible w it

E.g. A v Secretary of State for home department ruled that the anti terrorism act 2001 was incompatible w articles 5 and 14 of HRA by permitting the indefinite detention of suspected international terrorists in a way that discriminated on the grounds of nationality or immigration status.