Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why, in practice, parliamentary sovereignty is not undermined by the Human Rights Act
Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why, in practice, parliamentary sovereignty is not undermined by the Human Rights Act. (10 marks) Parliamentary gives Parliament superior and legal authority as they can make or unmake any Act of Parliament they wish and although the House of Commons’ has most of the dominance they always need the support of the House of Lords to pass an Act. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to this joint power. The Human Rights Act 1998 is a law passed by Parliament that has limited the application of parliamentary sovereignty as it is made unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention although the courts can only make a declaration. Under the Human Rights Act, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, as far as possible, in a way that is compatible with the rights of the Convention. However, it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament and make the law compatible with the Convention as they cannot override it and only make a declaration of incompatibility, a suggestion to Parliament that the law should be changed to coincide with Convention rights. It is then the majority party that will decide in Parliament of the changes, maintaining the sovereignty. The repercussions of this in terms of maintaining a democratic government because of the fact unelected and therefore
The Theory of the Separation of Powers in UK Government.
SEPARATION OF POWERS The doctrine of SOP is the appropriate allocation of powers and the limits between the legislature, executives and the judiciary. Each state organ must be rules by different people and each of them have different powers. The doctrine originated from Aristotle, where he distinguishes the deliberative, majesterial and the judiciary in every constitution. By the 13th century, England’s King, Lords and Commons could be classified in three types of government, monarchies, aristocracies and democracies as per ancient Greece. In UK today, Montesquieu sees SOP in a different way. He believes there is legislative, executive and judiciary in a constitution. Currently, there is a proper allocation of powers between the three state organs. Furthermore, the SOP doctrine aims to avoid absolutism in power by preventing a monopoly of powers and functions. Montesquieu also mentions that all would be lost if the same man or same ruling body were to exercise these powers. This shows SOP is important in upholding the rule of law doctrine in the British Constitution. Since there is an unwritten constitution in UK, it is a product of experience and does not recognize strict SOP. For example, the ministerial responsibility convention says that ministers not only implement laws but they are decision makers too. Hence, sufficient SOP results in checks and balances within the
Critically evaluate the laws and conventions that regulate and control the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Critically evaluate the laws and conventions that regulate and control the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In United Kingdom (UK), it consists of a bicameral legislative system, consisting of the House of Commons (HOC) and the House of Lords (HOL). This is to ensure that the legislative system also represents aspects of society and also ensures that the power to legislate is shared between two bodies, rather than being concentrated on one body. The two chambers should not have the same character as the “UK’s bicameral legislative system should be composed of two complementary rather than rival chambers.” Having a bicameral system would also ‘mutually keep each other from exceeding their proper limits’ as per William Blackstone. The HOC is made up of the ruling government as majority members while HOL is more politically balanced as it is not organised based on political part affiliations. HOL consists of; the hereditary peers, who have the most controversial memberships and only 92 members out of an initial 759 members remained after the House of Lords Act 1999; life peers, where it is a high honour conferred to be one in the UK. They are usually more participatory in terms of attendance and debates than hereditary peers. Judicial peers are judges who were granted peerage after they retired or comprise the Judicial Committee of
Discuss the case for and against a written constitution for the UK
CONSTITUTION “Discuss the case for and against a written constitution for the UK” A constitution is an institution or body, which governs through law and regulation, protects the rights of the people from abuse also legitimizes state governance. It can be either written or unwritten. A written constitution would consist of the most basic law of the country and from also which, other rules and laws are derived hierarchically. It also has to be constantly read in reference to ever-changing social, political and economic circumstances. An unwritten constitution, adopted by the UK, has an array of rules that has no hierarchy of statutes and are all ordinary. As per AV Dicey mentioned, the UK’s constitutional laws are spread over legal rules like the Magna Cart 1215 and Bill of Rights 1689, and non-legal rules like conventions. It does not have a single document defining the government’s powers and rights. Separation of powers In UK, a separation of functions exists between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. However there is no strict separation of powers. F.F Ridley commented in ‘There is no British Constitution,’ that ‘Parliament can make or unmake or unmake any law,’ which shows UK having Parliamentary Sovereignty. In contrast, a written constitution, like the United States of America (USA), works on the basis of constitutional sovereignty. A
General Election Process In The Uk
General Election In the UK we are lucky to have what is called a democracy. This is when we allow people to give their opinion in the form of voting. This lets the people of the UK have a say in how the country is run - after all they do live there. General Elections give the people who vote a chance to vote for a new representative for their area. The country is divided into areas called constituencies and the person who wins the vote in his or her constituency will become a member of parliament or MP. Here are the phases of how the General Election works. Dissolvement of parliament https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/r2w3ZauSodv5ygU5RCEbbOPYC2_hC-74lV0nP58n-3-Sa2HZcvG4YLwvnBir0JZ5fal4jlTnPnV96-9e8jxZZ_zLLgygojEyaV-f8gxlkoCiwfbegB3DDlhwQ72snvlVmg The current prime minister makes the formal announcement that soon it will be time to vote for a new party. He asks the Queen to dissolve (suspend) parliament and sets the date for the Election Day. Six days later parliament is dissolved. This mean all the current MP’s that won last time lose their jobs and have to campaign to get reelected. They do this as keeping things the same isn’t a good thing. Refreshing the government means new ideas which makes people happy. We do this so that there is change, it wouldnt be good if we never brought new ideas to the table. How to be eligible to create a party Anyone can start a
Should the Constitution of the UK remain uncodified?
Should the constitution of the UK remain uncodified? [40] In the UK, we currently have an uncodified constitution. This means that it is not written down in full, and is implemented in a few ways: statute law, common law, conventions, works of constitutional authority and the European law and treaties. This differs from the USA, where they have a codified constitution, which contains all the laws that govern the states. One reason it is argued the current constitution should remain is that by being unwritten it is flexible. It can adapt to changes in society, and in the fast moving, currently volatile political climate, this is vital. The constitution can be changed very easily – it only takes a policy to be passed by Parliament. An example of when this has been beneficial is when Brown introduced a convention in 2007 that stated that the UK would never declare war without the decision first being passed through Parliament. This was as a result of the second Iraq war, and just recently, this convention has come into play. When Cameron was deciding whether or not to send airstrikes into Iran, it was passed through Parliament first (For: 524, Against: 43). However, campaigners for a codified constitution would argue that it would stop all uncertainty – it would be the be all and end all, as with our current set up, there is room for ambiguity, whereas if there were a
To what extent are the Conservatives committed to their traditional principles?
To what extent are the Conservatives committed to their traditional principles? The Conservative party has drastically changed since 1979 – first with the extreme right Thatcher, then with the more centralised current party under Cameron. Although the current party can be seen as retaining the traditional principles (for example, Euro-scepticism), they have moved away from their origin in other cases, such as in taxes and education. One way the party has retained its original principles is through Euro-scepticism. This is definitely a traditional value – Thatcher was constantly having tussles with the EU (the most significant of these being the threat to withhold VAT payments). Cameron has been very critical of the EU Parliament in the past, saying it is ‘indecisive’ and there is a sense of a ‘European Dictatorship’. The Conservatives haven’t been entirely clear on their stance of leaving or remaining in the EU, either, and have instead put the issue on hold until they are re-elected. Cameron also recently (2011) vetoed an EU-wide treaty concerning the euro-crisis, which goes further to show the Conservatives reluctance to cooperate with the EU, even though they are in a coalition with the Lib Dems, which should dilute the government’s overall stance. Overall, it is clear that the current Conservatives have stayed committed to this principle, and they seem
The case for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains strong. Discuss.
“The case for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong.” The UK has an uncodified constitution which means that the laws and regulations are not systematic. They are not written down in one document (such as the USA’s constitution is codified and can be brought on eBay). This means that the constitution is easily amended which helps it to keep up to date with the ever changing society we live in. There are several arguments for and against the use of an uncodified constitution with the main two comparisons in government being the UK (uncodified) and the USA (codified). To begin with, an uncodified constitution is written down in many different documents. Although the UK does has Works of Authority (Books containing as much as the constitution as possible), there still isn’t a set book of what the constitution is. You can’t learn your rights or what the constitution entails off by heart as it is ever changing. Our constitution is very flexible which enables laws to be easily amended. This was due to the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. It would be incredibly hard to make Britain codified as all the documents are separate with different sources. We couldn’t all agree on one interpretation of the constitution. Part of our freedom is to interpret the law and constitution. As well as this, the main point is that the uncodified
Referendums and Pressure Groups in the UK.
To what extent should referendums be used more widely in the UK? Referendums are a form of direct democracy which allows the electorate to vote for or against a singular issue. The most recent referendum was in 2014 for Scottish independence in which the outcome was no. Referendums can offer a clear answer to a political dead lock as well as influence politicians as to what the people desire such as the 1975 referendum on leaving the European Economic Community. This helps to renew mandate due to the answers given. They increase turn out with the 2014 Scottish referendum having a 90% turn out. This eliminates protest or tactical voting as it is a clear issue which is not on party policy. This direct democracy allows for constitutional or moral issues which make the electorate feel more involved. The participation on controversial issues allows for more people to want to get involved. Alternatively, referendums undermine our representative government. Former prime minister Attlee (1945-51) said referendums are “devices alien to our tradition” and “instruments of demogues and dictators” in which referendums are able to manipulate the electorate. The main example of this, is under Hitler’s reign to which he used referendums (phrased ambiguously) to justify the legislation he was passing. With all political apathy, if you increase the amount of referendums, people
To what extent have socialists been committed to equality of outcome?
3/12/14 To what extent have socialists been committed to equality of outcome? To a large but not full extent socialists have been committed to equality of outcome. This can be interpreted as ‘absolute’, in Marxist terms where all rewards are distributed equality irrespective of labour. Alternatively, ‘relative’ equality, as endorsed by social democrats, involves the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state and a system of progressive taxation. However in recent years social equality has been substituted by social inclusion in Blair’s Third Way. Here the focus was on “hand ups, not hand outs”, as highlighted by Bill Clinton. Marxists support the principle of absolute equality, arguing that rewards should be distributed equally across society. Social equality underpins community and cooperation. Therefore social equality would come from working together for a common benefit. This would bring about solidarity consequently overriding issues of instability and class conflict. Absolute equality calls for the means of production to be owned by the community under common ownership. This would reduce the inequalities reflected in the unequal structure of society, therefore upholding justice and fairness. Karl Marx believed that absolute equality based on ownership of the means of production would help in the creation of a classless society. This is evidence
