‘the Absence of a Written Constitution ... Enables Constitutional Change to Be Brought About Within the United Kingdom with the Minimum of Constitutional Formality.’ Essay
‘The absence of a written constitution ... enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality.’
Consider the sources of the UK constitution and the methods by which it may be changed. Do you agree with Barnett’s views?
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…show more content… This originally meant that the British Monarch decided when to dissolve Parliament (24) No longer the case! Shows flexibility f) Hard xviii) Absolute powers still exist, just in different body (25) No constitutional change, just altered who has power (26) No real power for monarchs any longer (f) Hunting Act 2004 (ii) Despite personal views and family legacy, the Queen was bound by convention to give Royal Assent xix) Monarchy is entrenched in history 4) Constitutional Conventions g) Easy xx) “not enforced” – Marshall and Moodie, ‘Some Problems of the Constitution’ (27) If not enforced, then can alter as people
