Essay on
British Politics
There are numerous
benefits of embracing a written constitution in Britain. In Britain there are
many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary people who have faith in
the aforementioned proposition. Britain’s customary constitution is old
fashioned, and there is not even a harmony about what it really embody as it is
made up of numerous etiquette, statute laws and very old recommendations.
Constitutions are
supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are
maintained. Britain’s written constitution would not only provide a rigid means
of protecting the people from the power of the executive, but also prohibit the
Government from being unified. Lately, this has been a major critique of the
Government. Even when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, she determined that
the Government power was too centralized, and required some sort of control.
Trusted by over 145,000 highly satisfied students for for custom essay
writing
A written constitution
would set out the association among individuals and the Government. It would
define the authority of the state and its agencies, and say who can do what and
where are the boundaries of power. The British Government has been accused of
decreasing its accountability through several agencies by permitting them to
carry out Government policies without the agency directors being held
responsible for their blunders. A written constitution could check this mistake
and make Parliament and democracy more answerable to themselves and the public.
Parliamentary reign is
slowly dropping in Britain, and a written constitution would not only reduce
Government sovereignty but also add to sovereignty of the electorate and the
judicial system. Presently, if the Government want to adjust or add to the
unwritten constitution, they can do it easily by passing an Act. This may imply
that we have an elective dictatorship in theory where the Government exercises a
supreme effect over Britain. A resolute, firm written constitution would evolve
more power into the people and the courts and disperse the sovereign powers of
decision making and encouragement of the Executive. This would be especially
beneficial with Europe in mind.
With an unwritten constitution, the constitutional insurance is fragile and
brittle. A written constitution would allow the British people to appeal to the
courts with a written document to back up their petitions. An assorted document
is a point of reference and the public will be able to read and grasp the
constitution in a more reasonable manner. A written constitution would not only
increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws
included in the constitution.
Even though the introduction of a written constitution is viable, it would be
extremely time consuming to blossom, particularly to the British taxpayers. The
written document would be produced from the present unwritten constitution,
therefore it primarily should have the statute laws, conventions and common law
that we already have, but written down and restrained from alterations. One of
the main rationale that indicated that UK should have a written constitution was
to protect citizen’s privilege.
Generally, the British people are against radical change, and many people have
shown uproar over devolution, the dissolution of hereditary peers, the Human
Rights Act and many more topics. There could not be anything much more radical
than ushering a written constitution into Britain. Presumably the main
controversy, which would prevent a written constitution from being introduced
into Britain, is the fact that it is simply unachievable. It would not only be
difficult to approach a consensus about who should decide and what the
constitution should precisely contain, but also that there is no body who can
warrant and legalize the introduction of a written constitution. The
Conservative Party have traditionally been in favor of keeping the unwritten
constitution, and so when the vote takes place within the House of Commons and
debates take place in the Tory-majority House of Lords, the outcome would
presumably have a strong following opposing a written constitution.
Trusted by over 145,000 highly satisfied students for for custom essay
writing
Overall, there are also a huge number of motives opposing a written
constitution, which would pose the country a lot of problems if Parliament
decided to present one. A convincing hint is that there may not be many
skeptical aftereffects of introducing a written constitution, but as the present
one works efficiently, there simply be no need for one.
The House of Lords has lost authority over the years, special with the New Labor
government abolishing hereditary peers, so a written constitution may be able to
recapture some of the lost authority. This may particularly gratify the
Conservatives, although the Lords have looked to become old fashioned and if
Labor introduced an assorted constitution, they most likely would not increase
the Lord’s domination within the constitution. Also, if the strength of the
unelected Lords gets enhanced with the backing of a written constitution, this
may be a dubious thing as they are supposed to be a collection of people that
provide scrutiny of bills and the Commons, not a group that pass bills and run
the country. If Britain had a written constitution like America there then may
be the predicament of whether to carry through in the shoes of US and usher a
Supreme Court to define the constitution. This may then make problems of whether
or not it should be chosen and democratic, or unelected and exposed to bias,
prejudice and dishonesty.
Many people presume that a written constitution would replenish checks and
balances on the constitution as they have diminished, but no severely bad things
have happened since they looked to have carved away, possibly indicating that
the British people already have a practical dependable government that does not
require to be muddled by a fortified constitution.
Conclusion
Most likely a written constitution will work. A written constitution would
assist the politicians and governments whose validity would be ordered in a
written social convention, imposing conformity to a constitutionally decreed
power system, but this may not be worth having. Britain is reputed to be a
liberal democracy where the people are governed by the people for the people,
and so it may not be a good idea to infringe the powers of those who have entire
power and power over those who do not possess the very strength.
Analysts are convinced
that a comprehensive written constitution is indispensable in the UK. Now what
is significant is that a cohesive society requires at least one complete bedrock
of agreement, and if this comes in the form of an unwritten or a written
constitution, it actually would not matter. As UK is presently stable, it would
be severe to usher a written constitution. If a written constitution were
introduced easily and cheaply, then all the benefits of a written constitution
would be able to be held by the country. Despite this, it is uncontestable that
it would be hard to figure out what to encompass in a written constitution.
Therefore, the public would have to be conferred in a referendum. But then there
is the probability that most of the common public simply feel no need for a
written constitution in Britain. At present Britain’s unwritten constitution can
be adjusted and added to sufficiently comply with the needs of the common
people. Their needs to be some kind of check introduced to anticipate potential
autocrat.
|
