Public Law and Human Rights

Question-1

Discussion

The constitution of new United Kingdom and its one of the most striking features is that

no one planned and developed it. Due to no constitutional convention in United Kingdom, with

delegates from English regions, particularly in Westminster Hall, Wales, Scotland and Northern

Ireland. There should be British equivalent of Philadelphia in 1787 or Bonn in 1948, but no one

had influentially suggested and raised their voices regarding its importance. Some of the major

factors that had caused Professor King to argue that a defining constitutional moment has never

been experienced by UK is the “European Economic Community” prominent agreement of

Britain’s shareholders, ad hoc holding referendums and over the UK interest taxes handing over

to the Bank of England the power to make command. Much of the less attention and less

awareness were intentionally willed and given to their constitutional inferences. In effecting the

constitutional amendments, the reorganisation of the “House of Lords”, Northern Ireland,

Scotland and Wales, and the way of Human Rights Act were willed by the “Blair Government”.

But still, lacking a collected Constitution and most importantly, no one has been able to produce

the writing style of “America’s Founding Fathers” which has illustrated the new constitution and

commending its qualities in the light of a volume of “Federalist Papers”.

Moreover, there is a straight forward reason of no volume of “Federalist Papers” and i.e.

no one could produce a writing of such a volume and the main reason is the new constitution

consists deficiency of a plan and not only a planner. The plans are well-oriented but the

traditional United Kingdom do not have the planner to reinforce or execute those specific set of
rationally coherent classifying principles. As well as the partition of labour between governed

democratic responsibility and governors and onwards. The essential ground plan was simple for

all to see, as the point might be incomprehensible for few of those. The primary assumption is

the extent to which power accruing and power detaching have gone on more or less concurrently

due to the absence of sustained thought that has disappeared into the practice of British

constitutional amendment. As the “House of Commons” has been kept severely in its place, and

the forthcoming reorganisation of the House of Lords, whereas, on the other hand, local

government has been underprivileged of several of its meanings and much of its autonomy.

Hence, it had been quite difficult to establish second chamber of United States like or German

like importance. Instead, on the other hand, to delegate power and to shed it the Blair

Government’s own claims to have been willing are almost entirely justified.

However, in the virtuously expressive intellect of having a set of guidelines, the United

Kingdom today undoubtedly own a constitution by regulating the associations amongst the

diverse parts of the government and the relations between the different parts of the government

and the people.

Question-2

Discussion

Currently, there is no written constitution in Britain but a collection of written constitution is

required for the British system in order to operate their regulatory and governance structure. This

will demand efforts from the members of Parliament and governing bodies and regulatory. This

will be an important measure in the history of Britain’s or UK governance as well as societal

relationships. One advantage of the written constitution is the check and balance, as the judiciary
is relatively weak in the current circumstances and it will retain the ability to act as a test in

opposition to parliament. The power is increased by a written constitution. In the "House of

Commons", if a party has a mainstream, several people believe that this can amend the

constitution. The example can be considered of “Blair’s” change of the “House of the Lords”.

Undoubtedly, with no a referendum or other means of checking agreement, he was completely

able to change half of UK legislature. The changing of a written constitution would rather be

difficult as it would act as a safeguard. For example, it must be passed by referendum or both

houses must have 2/3 majority to make it ineffective. A further dispute is Protection from

extremists for a written constitution. If an extremist came to power, and wanting to demolish

democratic measures, a written constitution would provide protection.

Hence, the UK has no “Bill of Rights” without a written constitution to protect its citizens

from an over powerful state. With judges only able to rule that new laws are “non-compliant”

with the Act, the existing “Human Rights Act” offers only weak protection. However, much

stronger protection for the rights of a citizen will be provided by a written constitution with a

proper Bill of Rights. There is no doubt, about a fact that with an unwritten constitution, Britain

has survived very well up till now. The public understands the conventions as they not

clamouring for a written constitution which govern political procedure. The parliament therefore

requires, to take immediate steps towards the better transformation of the written constitution as

it is necessary to reform the current structure of the government. These written constitution will

demand a positive response from public and regulatory bodies as well as the policies or

guidelines that has been established in the past. Overall, these factors will associate towards the

better judiciaries as discussed earlier. No parliament can be bound by its predecessors or bind its

successors.