The British Constituion For and against

Make the case that Britain needs a codified constitution Although it can be said that having parliamentary sovereignty replaces the need for a codified constitution in practice parliamentary sovereignty is arguably not effective enough.

Britain's parliamentary sovereignty is being eroded by our international commitments especially in Europe. Since Britain signed the Single European Act in 1986.This introduced majority voting, whilst budgets for NATO are agreed ahead of Parliamentary debate whilst the European Courts of Human Rights Act have the right o introduce such things like prisoners vote. The MIFF also have power over Parliamentary sovereignty for example, in 1976 they told the Labor government to cut social spending in return for a loan. Checks and balances in our constitution are weak and our eroding due to change in government power.

Although we have bicameralism where the two separate powers take part in the formulation of policy, in practice this process is ineffective as bills sent to the House of Lords rarely have a sustainable say, although they can amend the bill or delay the bill for a year this is ere rare and even if sent back for amendment little changes are made, this could be said due to the House of Lords being unelected thus given little mandate to take part in the bill process meaning they are an illegitimate check over the House of Commons.Parliament generally is a weak check over government, especially due to the raise of more authoritarian Prime Ministers such as Blair of whom only lost one clause of one bill over the 90 day detention for terrorist and also Thatcher on the Sunday Shops bill. With a change in government and a government with a strong ingle party majority and sustainable use of party discipline can become an 'elective dictatorship' as Halifax said. Another important factor is that in order to prevent from our rights being eroded we need a codified entrenched Bill of Rights.The Human Rights Act of 1998 is Just an ordinary law and can be eroded, cases such as the detaining of terrorists suspects increasing from 7 days, to 14 and now 28 days highlights that a government can implement such laws without popular mandate from the public. It can also be said that having a constitution can educate and give he public a clearer understanding of Britain's constitution.

Codified constitutions work well elsewhere and have appeared effective being democratic and give a more modern approach to the governing of a country.It can be said that it is not essential for Britain to have a codified constitution. Britain still has accountability and holds various checks and balances. If Britain had a constitution, government could hide behind there codified constitution to Justify their inactivity. Without a codified constitution, government is more accountable and checks and balances can be carried out with ease. This would state that implementing a constitution would be unnecessary, as we already have implemented many new checks and balances.

The I-J Joined the EX. in 1973, this meant that a large amount of sovereignty has been transferred to the EX. of whom have a codified constitution. EX. laws are superior to UK laws and the I-J courts must enforce EX.

laws. Parliament is accountable to the EX. and has surrendered its sovereignty to the EX. in certain areas. Devolution has also shifted powers elsewhere to the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assembly.

House of Commons select committees and the newly set up Liaison Committee (2002) also hold checks on government twice a year. Referendums are used, which have become increasingly popular in recent years. The media now also have sufficient power and carry more assertion in scrutinizing government e. G. 'Laborer's lost it' 1966.

Pressure groups membership has also has risen with insider and outsider groups becoming a sufficient check on government with such power that they can cause policy formulation or implementation.It can also be stated that a codified constitution is undesirable as ultimate power from elected MSP would shift to a body of unelected, unaccountable, irremovable and out of touch Judges who could strike down unconstitutional laws. A codified constitution would also be very hard to achieve for many reasons. There would be little consensus on what to include in the constitution and may become time consuming when looking for general agreement especially on controversial areas such as rights, voting systems, the House of Lords and involvement in the ELI.Also in practice a change to the constitution can only be implemented by the publics desire to make such a significant change, but there is little public concern in setting up a codified constitution. Also introduction such a change would destroy two important existing principles to our constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty and an independent Judiciary.

A codified constitution has been over written in the past, for example the USA still have Augmentation. Having an unconfined constitution is more traditional and flexible meaning it can be easily changed and so evolve and adapt to changing circumstances.