: Unwritten Codification, Monarchical And Religion

In this Essay I will be discussing whether or not the UK Constitution is fit for purpose, in relation to the three themes specifically stated: “Unwritten Codification, Monarchical and Religion. After exploring the given themes, I will be giving my opinion on whether an Amendment of the UKs Constitution is required, to be fit for purpose in the XXI Century. I will also be evaluating throughout my essay. However, before I am able to do this, we must first establish the Purpose of a Constitution. ‘Constitutions are designed to set out the rules and regulations within which governments operate’. By knowing this we need to acknowledge that the UK, does not have “Set Out” rules, but rather Uncodified ones (Unwritten). “The rule of law, separation of powers, the royal prerogative (power of the Crown which is exercised by the prime minister) and parliamentary sovereignty are the basic tenets of the UK Constitution”. Now that we have established the Purpose of a Constitution, we can look at whether or not an Uncodified Constitution is fit for Purpose in the XXI Century. As stated above an Uncodified Constitution does not have a Set of Rules, fully written, therefore no Laws are Hierarchically Superior to others.

In terms of why an Uncodified Constitution may be fit for Purpose, I believe the advantage of Flexibility to change Laws is very crucial, especially in the XXI Century. This is because Social Changes are happening very frequently, and this is acting as an External Influence over the Constitution. We know this because of the rise of the LGBT community, which has been emphasised in the Same Sex Couples Act 2013. Here, it was a situation where the Constitution had to respond to a Social Change, but because of the Fact we are exposed to such flexibility made this much easier, which is why I strongly believe that ESPECIALLY in the XXI Century we will be faced with a lot more Social Change and not having an Uncodified Constitution will make this much harder to respond, in relation to the Rigidness of a Codified Constitution, it is important to understand that despite being rigid it still has the capability of being amended, but it makes it much harder. In order to Clarify, my main point in this Example, is the fact that Passing of Laws is much easier, and Social Change is the best way to illustrate this. Now moving away for the Example of Social Change, an Uncodified Constitution may not be fit for Purpose in the XXI Century, because it may prove to be Unclear to the Public. One way in which I believe this is relevant, is in relation to another Module: Criminal Law, “The Principle of Fair Warning requires clear communication of the law to the public”. To not move away from the theme of this essay, I will not be explaining this principle. Here, we are able to establish that because clear communication is required, it would be much more suitable to have Codified Constitution, because it enables us to actually know all of our rights, what we can and cannot do, making the issue of clear communication not only clear to us, but Politicians and Judges also, in terms of clearly stating what they can and can not do. In terms of being fit for purpose, the UK Constitution will be able to establish a set of ground rules enabling everybody to follow them, meaning a Codified Constitution may be Fit for Purpose over an Uncodified one. Therefore, bringing me to the conclusion that in terms of Codification, no reform should be made.

Moving over to our next theme, I will be discussing the Religious Influence on the UKs Constitution. In this paragraph, my objective is to determine whether or not Religion should have an Influence on our Constitution making it fit for purpose or not. Because of the following statement, the “inclusion of religious, as well as moral and philosophical, views in a second chamber may be valuable, such representation should not be restricted to a single denomination or faith given the religious diversity that characterises the UK today” . I believe one Religion should not have an Influence on the Operation of our Constitution. This is to not say that our Constitution should not disregard Christianity when making decisions, my point is in relation to whether we really need so many representatives of one Religion. This is illustrated through the figure of “26 Church of England bishops and archbishop”. Here I believe a reform should be made, in terms of diversifying the range of representatives per faith. This would be beneficial as it would enable a much wider scope of other faiths, ensuring consistent where the ‘restriction to one religion’ MAY not be, when influencing the House of Lords. In terms of viewing this from the other end of the scope, I believe that is unnecessary to state that we do not need religion, so therefore I will be focusing on whether or not it is necessary for this ‘restriction’ detailed in the statement above. When looking at this more narrowly, we need to ask ourselves are 26 Bishops really that significant in terms of restriction, in my view this is not the case, because other faiths are still considered in the discussions in the House of Lords. Regardless of whatever view we have on this, I believe it is safe to say the Constitution does need Religious Influence, in order to remain fit for purpose, but in relation to my counter balance, despite the scope not being as wide as it can be, a reform would be unnecessary, due to the fact of other faiths being mentioned anyway, as well as 26 not really being that significant.

Finally, referring to Monarchy, “the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, in which the queen or king is the head of state, while an appointed prime minister leads the government in the form of Parliament. Bestowed with all law-making powers, the Parliament is composed of the House of Commons, the members of which are elected by the people, and the House of Lords made up members who have either been appointed or have inherited their seats”. In terms of favouring a Monarchy in terms of being fit for purpose, I will be using the of Royal Assent. As we know Primary Legislation is legislation that is untouchable and can not be void. Here the Monarchy

To conclude, I believe that the UK is fit for purpose and doesn’t need reform. Starting with the Uncodified Situation, as I have stated I do not believe that an Uncodified Constitution is unfit for purpose, despite the temptation of having complete clarity through a codified one. The reason I believe flexibility outweighs this, is because in my opinion I believe having a Dynamic Constitution, means our Legal System can be Fluid and Efficient when making amendments in response to changes that are needed from the society. Therefore, I strongly believe an Uncodified Constitution is fit for purpose in the XXI Century. Moving over to Religion, I believe this is essential in the Constitutions Success in terms o9f being fit for purpose, this is because the Bishops also provide exposure to other faiths, when sitting in the House of Lords, and despite the extent to which this is, they still do this. In relation to the XXI Century, we already know that the UK is now home to many faiths and not specifically Christianity, meaning this diversification will continue, hence the requirement of Religion in the Constitution to help contribute to the Constitution being fit for purpose. Finally, in relation to the Monarchy, because I stated that… Therefore, this brings me to a very strong Conclusion that the United Kingdom’s Constitution is still fit for purpose and it is in no need of amending.