In this essay, I would like to analyse why the reform of the British constitution is seen as unfinished business. Constitutional reform is when the system of government and how government institutions interact is changed. This has also meant the codification of some components of the constitution in the UK. Between 1997 and 2007, there were a considerable number of constitutional reforms introduced by the Blair governments. These reforms included devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, decentralisation, reform of the House of Lords and Commons, creations of new legislation granting greater freedom and rights within the UK, and so on. However, some of them are yet to be accomplished or in progress related to the electoral and …show more content…
Until now, the content of the constitutional reform has not covered any electoral reform yet as the constitution was prone to manipulation by single-party governments.
The reform of the Human Rights Act can illustrate that the constitutional reform did not go far enough. In 1998, the Blair government announced that the citizens ' rights would be safeguarded and strengthened through incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. However, this created a problem as the UK now has two sets of rights – those built up under Common Law and those in the Human Rights Act. These two sets of rights may conflict and, in addition, cases can be taken using these rights to both the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which is the supreme court for the European Convention on Human Rights). The UK judiciary is divided on how to resolve this issue.
The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In
A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory
Human Rights Act 1998 - The Human Rights Act means that residents of the United Kingdom will now be able to seek help from the courts if they believe that their human rights have been infringed.
Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed or where a change is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there has been many key reforms that have made UK more democratic by a large amount and sometimes not so much if at all.
Two centuries ago, Britain’s elections were not balanced nor representative. Outside of the landed classes a sense of injustice and political consciousness was growing. There were many issues to be addressed, and a parliamentary reform was needed. Even though many reforms had been proposed in the 18th century, there was a strong opposition to them, especially after the French Revolution.
The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten
One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s
Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.
One of the most celebrated forms of democracy, the "Westminster model" has been a defining feature of the British political system for the past century. Coined after the location where the Houses of Parliament stand, the system is also sometimes referred to as the majoritarian model, in that majority rule is a central attribute of the model. The characterising factors of the model have been present throughout modern British political history, but more apparent in some years than others. The years 1945-1970 symbolise a strong alignment with the main features of the model, in which bare majority cabinets and the concentration of executive power in one party delineated the British political system. The 1970s on the other hand saw a deviation
Alternatively some argue that the executive has too much power which threatens individual rights. Therefore some suggest that a codified constitution would help to safeguard citizen’s rights because at the moment Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights by passing the Human Rights Act 1998, which is considered weak as it could be overridden by Parliament due to Parliamentary sovereignty. Furthermore the European Convention on Human rights is part of UK law however its terms are not determined in the UK, whereas a codified constitution would include a statement of rights in the UK which would be controlled domestically.
Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .
Britain has historically been a wealthy and well off country since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. At that time Parliament became the real power in Britain, long past were the days of King John, which sparked the Magna Carta in 1215. As a small country in terms of land mass, only 94,060 square miles (United Kingdom), it is remarkable that it has held a great deal of power worldwide. The knowledge that change in government was necessary for continued stability and world power has lead to its success. By allowing incremental change over time, Britain has avoided a great deal social unrest, which as plagued much of the world, making Britain’s government the most successful in history.
Throughout history there has always been revolutions, change, and reforms. In 1832, England experienced the death of George IV and accession of William IV in 1830 ,that resulted in a general parliamentary election in which the opposition political party, the Whigs, scored major gains with their platform calling for parliamentary reform. With the Tory party divided, the king asked the leader of the Whigs, Earl Grey, to form a government. Immediately, the Whigs introduced a major reform bill designed to increase the number of voters by 50 percent and to eliminate underpopulated electoral districts (“rotten boroughs”) and replace them with representatives for previously unrepresented manufacturing districts and cities, especially in the industrial
Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are both concepts that are key to shaping the British constitution, however there is ambiguity as to which concept is the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangement in the recent years.
On the contrary, the charm and appeal of the current UK constitution may be lost in removing it’s archaic traditions by adopting a modernised approach. The mantra of ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ is often the line of reasoning for many when debating against a written constitution for a traditional and conservative Britain. Professor Barber contended ‘ Britain’s constitution has, by and large, been a success’ as ‘is has produced stable government and
Following the signing of the ECHR, the United Kingdom introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). Under s6(3)(a) HRA 1998, the courts are now considered a public body, therefore no decisions they make can affect the guaranteed rights of any individual under ECHR. The introduction of this legislation has resulted in individuals bringing claims for Human Rights breaches where negligence claims have