The case for a written constitution for the United Kingdom has now become unanswerable. Discuss.
The case for a written constitution for the United Kingdom has now become unanswerable. Discuss.
Unlike the majority of democratic states, the United Kingdom (UK) does not have a written constitution. The present constitution is one based on custom, precedent and parliamentary supremacy. This has created a number of problems, some of which will be discussed here. The number of problems far outnumber the advantages of a lack of a written constitution; now we have reached the place where it appears that the objections do not justify there not being a written constitution for the UK.
Turpin describes a written constitution as a 'declaration of a country's supreme law' which includes 'a statement of fundamental principles'. All other laws and institutions are subordinate. Lord Scarman says that it is 'a fundamental...law binding on Parliament, the government and the people'. From these statements a written constitution seems to be a very simple document, yet it entails a long process in its creation and ensuing amendments. As it is intended to be based on the people's authority, a referendum is required for both.
Over the years there have been many movements towards a written constitution, including some drafts such as Charter 88. As well as this, many of the requirements for a written constitution are in place; the imminent arrival of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights provided by the Human Right's Act 1998 (HRA). Nevertheless, Lord Goodhart argues that more needs to be done to reach the stage when the creation of a written constitution is possible. Reasons include the fact that the government's use of the Royal Prerogative is yet to be restricted or regulated.
Unlike the majority of democratic states, the United Kingdom (UK) does not have a written constitution. The present constitution is one based on custom, precedent and parliamentary supremacy. This has created a number of problems, some of which will be discussed here. The number of problems far outnumber the advantages of a lack of a written constitution; now we have reached the place where it appears that the objections do not justify there not being a written constitution for the UK.
Turpin describes a written constitution as a 'declaration of a country's supreme law' which includes 'a statement of fundamental principles'. All other laws and institutions are subordinate. Lord Scarman says that it is 'a fundamental...law binding on Parliament, the government and the people'. From these statements a written constitution seems to be a very simple document, yet it entails a long process in its creation and ensuing amendments. As it is intended to be based on the people's authority, a referendum is required for both.
Over the years there have been many movements towards a written constitution, including some drafts such as Charter 88. As well as this, many of the requirements for a written constitution are in place; the imminent arrival of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights provided by the Human Right's Act 1998 (HRA). Nevertheless, Lord Goodhart argues that more needs to be done to reach the stage when the creation of a written constitution is possible. Reasons include the fact that the government's use of the Royal Prerogative is yet to be restricted or regulated.