'The absence of a written Constitution
Prep Activity for Public Law Workshop 1
‘The absence of a written constitution … enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality’ (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law 2011)
Intro
Whilst not completely, I largely agree with the statement posed in the question.
Define Constitution
Ultimately, the UK has an uncodified Constitution, derived from a number of sources, but revolves around the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, and, as such, an Act of Parliament can effectively change the nature of the UK’s constitution.
The very presence of this aforementioned parliamentary supremacy is overwhelmingly different from the rigidity of codified constitutions found elsewhere, most notably in the United States and France.
Nevertheless, the incorporation of EU law into UK law has certainly affected the flexibility afforded by an uncodified constitution.
All of these aforementioned points shall be developed.
Nature of Constitution
Statute – Majority needed. (Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1701, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, European Communities Act 1972)
Far cry from rigidity in the States.
Case Law (Allows judges a place to interpret Parliament
Convention, Royal Prerogative (Neither are binding but are flexible and develop with time. Most notable being limitation on Royal Power
EU Law
European Communities Act 1972 introduced principle of EU law supremacy.
Human Rights Act 1998, for example, is effectively binding.
Conclude
Flexible outside of EU law.
Conventions allow the constitution to adapt to the modern world.
Statute is binding.
‘The absence of a written constitution … enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality’ (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law 2011)
Intro
Whilst not completely, I largely agree with the statement posed in the
‘The absence of a written constitution … enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality’ (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law 2011)
Intro
Whilst not completely, I largely agree with the statement posed in the question.
Define Constitution
Ultimately, the UK has an uncodified Constitution, derived from a number of sources, but revolves around the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, and, as such, an Act of Parliament can effectively change the nature of the UK’s constitution.
The very presence of this aforementioned parliamentary supremacy is overwhelmingly different from the rigidity of codified constitutions found elsewhere, most notably in the United States and France.
Nevertheless, the incorporation of EU law into UK law has certainly affected the flexibility afforded by an uncodified constitution.
All of these aforementioned points shall be developed.
Nature of Constitution
Statute – Majority needed. (Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1701, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, European Communities Act 1972)
Far cry from rigidity in the States.
Case Law (Allows judges a place to interpret Parliament
Convention, Royal Prerogative (Neither are binding but are flexible and develop with time. Most notable being limitation on Royal Power
EU Law
European Communities Act 1972 introduced principle of EU law supremacy.
Human Rights Act 1998, for example, is effectively binding.
Conclude
Flexible outside of EU law.
Conventions allow the constitution to adapt to the modern world.
Statute is binding.
‘The absence of a written constitution … enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality’ (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law 2011)
Intro
Whilst not completely, I largely agree with the statement posed in the