'The House of Lords should be abolished. The UK only needs one chamber of parliament' Discuss
'The House of Lords should be abolished. The UK only needs one chamber of parliament.' Discuss Since the formation of the House of Lords during the reign of Edward III the role of this chamber has transformed greatly. From being the most powerful House at its formation to being abolished during the Civil War period and subsequently reinstated; the role and indeed the existence of the House of Lords has been subject to much debate. The main current functions of this House are: The expert scrutiny of parliamentary bills, to 'check' the power of the House of Commons, to uphold the democratic constitutional rights of UK citizens, to scrutinise legislation for Human Rights compatibility, to scrutinise public policy and to scrutinise EU legislation. The powers of the House of Lords include the power to delay legislation that has been approved by the House of Commons and limited veto powers. However, these legislative powers are heavily restricted by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The main argument in favour of the motion in question is: That the House of Lords is undemocratic and is contrary to the UK's core democratic values. Currently, The House of Lords is composed of 587 life peers, 92 hereditary peers and 26 bishops1. All of the life peers are appointed by the Queen, upon the advice of the Prime Minister. None of the members of the House of Lords are elected by the
A Constitutional Commission is considering how Constitutional conventions might be incorporated into the new draft of a new constitution of the United Kingdom. What options face the commission on what to recommend about conventions, and which course of ac
A (hypothetical) Constitutional Commission is considering how (if at all) Constitutional conventions might be incorporated into the new draft of a new constitution of the United Kingdom. What options face the commission on what to recommend about conventions, and which course of action would be preferable? The question of introducing a written constitution is a question fraught with difficulties as it is. The questions of whom should draft it? And what should go into it? Are all questions that would arise. It is certain that conventions too would also feature as a major question mark. As they stand at the moment, conventions are very difficult subject. There is not even unanimous concurrence as to what they actually are amongst academics. Their constitutional importance, however, is undisputed and the main argument must be whether or not they are codified into any written constitution that the UK may adopt. A loose term proffered by Dicey suggests that conventions are "understandings, habits, or practices ...[with regard to]...the conduct of several members of the sovereign power, of the Ministry, or of other officials." On the face of it then, constitutional conventions seem a vital part in governing the government. Rules to regulate the regulators. On closer inspection however, we see that they are (i) not written down, (ii) not enforceable by law, (iii) as a result of
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) was agreed by both houses on March 21, 2005 and received royal assent on the 24th March 2005. It fundamentally makes provision for adjusting the functions of the Lord Chancellor and the office as well as providing a Supreme Court to substitute the existing role of the Law Lords in the House of Lords. Furthermore, it resolves new judicial appointments. By introducing these reforms, the question arises as to whether the CRA has developed the doctrine of the separation of Powers in the UK's constitution that it hoped to achieve. It was stated by a Law Lord, Lord Steyn that the role of the chancellor was 'no longer on either constitutional or pragmatic terms...a spokesman for the government in furtherance of its party political agenda.'1 The Lord Chancellor had progressively developed overlapping powers including being a member of the Cabinet, Head of the Judiciary and a Speaker in the House of Lords allowing a concentration of power to the same one person which is undemocratic. This resulted in the government, deciding on a radical reform called the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) without any consultation. They had the desire to increase separation of Powers between judges and government and to comply with article six of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on judicial independence. The decision in the ECHR in McGonnel v United
The Factortame Litigation: death of UK Sovereignty
Jurisdiction Unresolved Executive Summary As economic crisis plagues the world today, matters of jurisdiction is on the rise. In this global economy of commerce the forum chosen or designated for the hearing of a matter can significantly change the outcome especially with regards to the available remedies. Of course, there are many practical difficulties encountered depending on the forum used. These include, location of parties; witnesses and the use of foreign languages. Consequently, parties increasingly lock horns over which court should hear their dispute. In England, there are two multifarious jurisdictional regimes, namely, the common law and European Union Law. These two regimes are like 'oil and water'. Their laws lack the thread of unity. For example, whether English courts will hear a dispute is discretionary and depends largely upon whether they, or the courts of another country, are the most appropriate forum (or "forum conveniens"). In order to make that decision, they will consider and balance the relevant factors. The European regime however is synonymous with a formula of sorts. Whereby the factors are applied in a hierarchy which ties the dispute to a particular member state. According to Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and Article 16(1) of the Lugano Convention a dispute concerning the validity of a company which had its seat in a European
Division of Powers
Westminster International University in Tashkent BA Commercial Law 2010 - 2011 To be completed by the student Student's ID number 00001271 Module name Public Law Module code UZB402 Tutor Carlos Martinez Individual assignment ( Group assignment ( Submission deadline 22.12.2010 I certify that all material in this coursework which is not my own work has been acknowledged and I am fully aware of the consequences of plagiarism. Signed For Academic Registrar use only Division of Powers Contents: Introduction: Short description of the essay. History: Short description of the origination of the doctrine. Separation of Powers in UK: Main description of the three powers and brief description of the British system. Separation of Powers in Uzbekistan: Main description of the three powers and brief description of the Uzbek system. Conclusion: Outline of the essay and short comparison of UK and Uzbekistan. Division of Powers Quote: When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. - Montesquieu Introduction: The doctrine of separation of powers is one of the most important concepts in the modern democratic government. This doctrine
How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?
How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century? The return of Blair's Labour government in May 2001 has assured the executive that their programme of constitutional reform will persist. The late 20th century in Blair's first term as Prime Minister heralded a revolution on the constitution, which had been planned and proposed by other political parties and interest groups since the 1920s. The initial permutations on the constitution have however not been fulfilled, which I believe will being about a second wave of changes to the constitution. The nature of the British constitution is unique among those of all others in Western democracies. Its composure is unitary, flexible, unwritten and codified. How will the developments of Blair's initial legislation change the constitution, and in what kind of arenas? The umbrella of European legislation is having more of an effect on Britain, and as our ties may increasingly in the future be more united as the question of Europe's authority and subsequently a European constitution. The ECHR has also brought into question the role of the judiciary in Britain and its relationship to the legislative and executive branches of government. Unitary Britain is visibly part of an ever integrating Europe, yet is also devolving powers across the national borders to the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the northern Ireland
A federal system would be much better for the United Kingdom. Review arguments for and against this proposition.
Title: 'A federal system would be much better for the United Kingdom'. Review arguments for and against this proposition. Federalism is not a brand new idea to the United Kingdom, but the inaptitude of devolution seems to be an essential prerequisite to the adoption of a federal system by the UK. As a solution to possibly a few different 'questions' that are being encountered by the UK, the idea of a federal system sounds even more appealing. The proposal of a federal UK reflects at least two states of current affairs: the dissatisfactions with devolution in the UK and a possible response to 'questions' such as the independence of Scotland and the English (West Lothian) question. There has been much debate on whether a federal system is a better option for the UK and this paper will seek to evaluate those arguments, leading to a conclusion that the proponents of a federal UK have a stronger case. A new impetus to the idea of UK adopting federalism emerges in recent years when the increasing demand for devolution which leads to the subsequent call for independence of the constituent nations signals the prospect of a disintegration of the UK. Thus, one of the main arguments in favour of a federal UK presents federalism as an alternative to the disintegration of the UK. Federalisation of the UK would be a response to demands for independence of constituent nations, especially
Law of the British Constitution
Constitutional And Administrative Law Law of the British Constitution Michaelmas Term 2003/4 Is it the case that the current checks and balances relating to Ministers executive powers are adequate in a modern parliamentary democracy? A paper recently published by the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has suggested that Royal Prerogative powers are anachronistic and that ministers acting under said powers are doing so with too few checks and balances imposed upon them. The Royal Prerogative is, in broad terms, the powers that the Monarch is able to exercise. In reality, many of these powers are exercised by Government and ministers in the name of the Crown, and have been for several hundred years. Dicey describes the Royal Prerogative as "The remaining portion of the Crown's original power"1. It is the powers that are delegated to ministers that are under the most scrutiny at present. One such power, the ability to deploy troops, and declare war, has been pertinent recently, due to the bombing of Iraq without the prior consent of Parliament, indeed. In the case of CND v Prime Minister [2003] ACD36, a case arising from this war, the Royal Prerogative was discussed insofar as whether or not UN resolution 1441 prevented the bombing of Iraq. In this case, it was decided that as the resolution was not ratified by English law, it was not
Explain the idea and function of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution
Public Law 1 – LW588 – Leon Taylor Explain the idea and function of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution The sovereignty of Parliament is the dominant characteristic of our political institutions which consists of the King, House of Lords and House of Commons acting together.[1] (This was said a long time ago, so, if adjusted today, the word King would be replaced with Queen and the meaning would still apply). By acting together, I mean, acts have to pass with consent from the Commons, Lords and the Queen. Parliament has the right to make or on unmake any law; it is the most important part of the UK constitution. Also, no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament[2]. It can be said then, that the sovereignty of Parliament is the fundamental doctrine of English constitutionalists[3] From its positive side, the principal of Parliamentary Sovereignty may be described as, “Any act of Parliament, or any part of an act of Parliament, which makes a new law, or repeals or modifies an existing law, will be obeyed by the Courts”. Looked at from its negative side, “There is no person or body of persons who can, under the English constitution, make rules which override or derogate from an act of Parliament, or which will be enforced by the courts in convention of an act of
The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental doctrines or principles of the UK constitution.
The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental doctrines or principles of the UK constitution. Indeed, Professor Jowell has described it as ‘a resilient and effective force’ behind the evolution of the United Kingdom’s constitution’.[1] Basically the rule of law can be interpreted either as philosophical or political theory. In political society, there are arguments against to the core meaning of the concept. From the above view of the rule of law by Lord Bingham, stated that the rule of law protects the individual rights against the state and to ensure the limited government power in accordance with law. This statement has obviously emphasized the liberal aspiration and individual freedoms in the concept of rule of law. However, in the UK society, there is strong disagreement as to the concept by considering Dicey’s three postulates of the rule of law. According to Lord Bingham, the above view which was stated in 2009 meant pretty much what Dicey had said in 1885. In recent years, Lord Bingham has contended that the principle of law can be broken down into eight sub-rules. In summary of his speech[2], it is ‘that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect generally in the future and publicly administered in the courts.’[3] Lord
![Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/888953/listing/888953_1.jpg)