.png){kind=icon}
1. ‘Constitutional conventions are unnecessary and the UK constitution can function well without them.’ Discuss.
- Explain what constitutional conventions are, and their purpose.
- Think about their contribution to the effective, efficient functioning of the UK.
- Emphasise their unwritten and political nature and the fact that they are not legal rules.
- Do any of these factors make them unnecessary?
- Consider specific examples of constitutional conventions and analyse what might happen if your chosen examples were breached. How serious would the consequences be? Could it lead to a constitutional crisis?
- Make the distinction between consequences that are unlawful (breach of a legal rule) and those that are unconstitutional (breach of a constitutional convention).
- You could also consider the arguments for and against transforming constitutional conventions into legal rules in a statute. What would be lost or gained by this?
2. Critically discuss the case for codifying the UK constitution.
Aim for balanced argument. (You will also find it helpful to read Chapter 1 for this question.)
- Explain the nature and scattered sources of the UK constitution. What issues does this raise e.g. difficult to refer to, lack of public accessibility?
- What are the benefits of an uncodified constitution?
- What could trigger the change to a codified constitution?
- What issues would arise if the UK did have a codified constitution? Consider the status of a codified constitution as higher law and its impact on parliamentary sovereignty, the need for a constitutional court, how easily a codified constitution could be changed. You could include comparisons with other constitutions to illustrate your arguments.
- Support your discussion with the views of commentators.