Discuss the view that the British constitution is too flexible
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Skip to page:
I'm struggling to come up with enough points. I've got the obvious, such as it's unwritten, therefore much more flexible than written constitutions. But apart from that I'm struggling. Any suggestions?
0
reply
Report
#2
Maybe that it is easily influenced by a current parliament? and that it can change from parliament to parliament, although this can be a pro as well as a con. I'm not to sure, I need to revise...
0
reply
(Original post by Streisella)
Maybe that it is easily influenced by a current parliament? and that it can change from parliament to parliament, although this can be a pro as well as a con. I'm not to sure, I need to revise...
Maybe that it is easily influenced by a current parliament? and that it can change from parliament to parliament, although this can be a pro as well as a con. I'm not to sure, I need to revise...
0
reply
Report
#4
It is unentrenched, in the sense that constitutional law is not legally superior to any other law. In this sense, the constitution can be changed just as any other law can be changed. This should be contrasted to countries such as Ireland where the constitution is entrenched; in Ireland, any constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. This makes it difficult to change. In the UK you only need a simple majority expressing itself clearly in Parliamentary legislation to change the constitution.
In the absence of a written constitution much of the UK's constitution is regulated by conventions which are uncertain and (arguably) easy to change. The normative force of these conventions are questionable, with some arguing they are mere guides to behaviour which can be changed easily by behaviour to the contrary. This is a debatable issue.
In the absence of a written constitution much of the UK's constitution is regulated by conventions which are uncertain and (arguably) easy to change. The normative force of these conventions are questionable, with some arguing they are mere guides to behaviour which can be changed easily by behaviour to the contrary. This is a debatable issue.
0
reply
(Original post by GeneralStudent95)
It is unentrenched, in the sense that constitutional law is not legally superior to any other law. In this sense, the constitution can be changed just as any other law can be changed. This should be contrasted to countries such as Ireland where the constitution is entrenched; in Ireland, any constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. This makes it difficult to change. In the UK you only need a simple majority expressing itself clearly in Parliamentary legislation to change the constitution.
In the absence of a written constitution much of the UK's constitution is regulated by conventions which are uncertain and (arguably) easy to change. The normative force of these conventions are questionable, with some arguing they are mere guides to behaviour which can be changed easily by behaviour to the contrary. This is a debatable issue.
It is unentrenched, in the sense that constitutional law is not legally superior to any other law. In this sense, the constitution can be changed just as any other law can be changed. This should be contrasted to countries such as Ireland where the constitution is entrenched; in Ireland, any constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. This makes it difficult to change. In the UK you only need a simple majority expressing itself clearly in Parliamentary legislation to change the constitution.
In the absence of a written constitution much of the UK's constitution is regulated by conventions which are uncertain and (arguably) easy to change. The normative force of these conventions are questionable, with some arguing they are mere guides to behaviour which can be changed easily by behaviour to the contrary. This is a debatable issue.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Back
to top
to top