Arguments for a codified constitution
The doctrine of Separation of Powers is designed to ensure that power is distributed fairly between institutions within the government. Today, there is much speculation about the amount (if any) of checks and balances made in the process of enacting and Act of Parliament. “The present constitution as it has evolved in recent times has become one of ‘elective dictatorship’, lacking separation in powers between executive, legislature and judiciary, and a system of checks and balances on ministers in office”. A written constitution would provide a higher form of law and a constitutional court, meaning the Prime Minister and the cabinet would not hold whole domination of the legal system. A written constitution …show more content…
Britain is known for its unusual and mysterious constitution and has become a historic tradition to have an unwritten constitution since 1653. “The only official written constitution Britain ever had, however briefly, was named the "Instrument of Government"; implemented by Oliver Cromwell in 1653. Between 1649–1660 several attempts were made to devise a written constitution, but none were called a "constitution"”. Codifying a constitution often arises from a major political upheaval i.e. the French Revolution 1789. It is somewhat impossible to codify a constitution without changing it entirely and as Britain is in a stable position, many feel that codifying the constitution would be unnecessary and …show more content…
Vernon Bogdanor explains that “the referendum showed, or perhaps confirmed, that on the issue of Europe, the sovereignty of the people trumped the sovereignty of Parliament. In the referendum, Britain voted, against the wishes of Parliament and government, to leave the European Union”. Upon the result of the vote, David Cameron resigned by noon that day. After an interim period, Theresa May became Prime Minister and was very clear that she wanted to trigger Article 50 as quickly as legally possible. This was scrutinized by remain voters and led to the ongoing legal battle ‘R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’, which argues that “the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament”. The court ruled in favor of Miller and decided that the “Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union”. Upon leaving the European Union there will be an imminent change in domestic law, we are yet to discover what that will be. Brexit could not have been prevented by having a written constitution; yet it may have prevented the
The doctrine of Separation of Powers is designed to ensure that power is distributed fairly between institutions within the government. Today, there is much speculation about the amount (if any) of checks and balances made in the process of enacting and Act of Parliament. “The present constitution as it has evolved in recent times has become one of ‘elective dictatorship’, lacking separation in powers between executive, legislature and judiciary, and a system of checks and balances on ministers in office”. A written constitution would provide a higher form of law and a constitutional court, meaning the Prime Minister and the cabinet would not hold whole domination of the legal system. A written constitution …show more content…
Britain is known for its unusual and mysterious constitution and has become a historic tradition to have an unwritten constitution since 1653. “The only official written constitution Britain ever had, however briefly, was named the "Instrument of Government"; implemented by Oliver Cromwell in 1653. Between 1649–1660 several attempts were made to devise a written constitution, but none were called a "constitution"”. Codifying a constitution often arises from a major political upheaval i.e. the French Revolution 1789. It is somewhat impossible to codify a constitution without changing it entirely and as Britain is in a stable position, many feel that codifying the constitution would be unnecessary and …show more content…
Vernon Bogdanor explains that “the referendum showed, or perhaps confirmed, that on the issue of Europe, the sovereignty of the people trumped the sovereignty of Parliament. In the referendum, Britain voted, against the wishes of Parliament and government, to leave the European Union”. Upon the result of the vote, David Cameron resigned by noon that day. After an interim period, Theresa May became Prime Minister and was very clear that she wanted to trigger Article 50 as quickly as legally possible. This was scrutinized by remain voters and led to the ongoing legal battle ‘R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’, which argues that “the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament”. The court ruled in favor of Miller and decided that the “Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union”. Upon leaving the European Union there will be an imminent change in domestic law, we are yet to discover what that will be. Brexit could not have been prevented by having a written constitution; yet it may have prevented the