Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article has been assessed as top-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Neaten up the article in general

I propose reorganising this section majorly. This is to benefit the peoplewho are learning about the constitution anew or comparing it to other constitutions. Alot of these concepts are established within the area of Constitution Studies...

Defining Features
- Written and Unwritten
- Rigid and Flexible
- (Supreme and Subordinate)
- Federal and Unitary
- Separated and fused Powers
- Republican and Monarchical
Sources
- Summary List
Key Principles
- Rule of Law
- Parliamentary Soverignty
- Seperation of Powers
- European Affairs
- Others
Disputes / Criticism
Recent Constitutional Reform

Alot of info is in the article but is aranged in an ad hoc way. The written/codified/unwritten is mentioned in four sections. Alot of the other sections are covered ('flexibility and rigidity' and 'fused powers' are already sectioned). The key principles section is particularly difficult to understand and neglects the 'seperation of powers'. Are there any objections or other suggestions here? Bamkin 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Statutes

Haven't changed anything, but think someone perhaps should: Consider...

At the Metric Martyr's prosecution (18th February 2002 at the Royal Courts of Justice), Lord Justice Laws ruled that certain statutes were ‘constitutional statutes’ and therefore incapable of implied repeal.. That is, they can only be repealed expressly; by specific mention in the body of a subsequent statute. The conviction relied on the fact that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 did not repeal any part of the European Community Act 1972, in spite of the later act allowing the use of imperial measures, which the EU later banned with measures made valid via the earlier one.

This is at odds with the opening paragraph "There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered 'constitutional law.' Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish any written or unwritten element of the constitution."

1 Because the above ruled that there is a technical difference. Part of the judgement defined certain other 'constitutional statutes; the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.

2 Because they can't "perform constitutional reform SIMPLY by passing Acts of Parliament". The acts must be very specifically worded or they have no authority over the constitutional statute; not a simple thing at all. Graldensblud 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to "unwritten"

The point about the UK constitution is that, firstly, there is no concept of entrenching at least domestic rules of law. This is the principle way in which it is contrasted with the constitution of (say) the United States. The second distinctive point is that there is a soft grading of constitutionality. Rules of law may be treated as of more or less constitutional importance by Parliament and the Courts. It would be impossible to precisely categorise in that way (despite Thoburn and Laws LJ, but that is another matter).

The problem is that the UK constitution is no more "unwritten" than any other constitution, just as the common law is no more unwritten than any other system of law. This is a mistake made by a lot of lay people and those unfamiliar with our system of law, who think equate "written law" with "legislation" and it isn't.

All significant constitutional conventions, just like all important principles of common law, are written down. Much Parliamentary practice is (for example) in Erskine May. A simple legal example (to illustrate the point) -- what is the definition of murder in English law? Answer (with some statutory modification) is that a passage from Coke's Institutes is cited in court. That is a written definition of a common law rule.

I am strongly of the view that the article should be changed to reflect this. The important point is no entrenchment and a fuzzy concept of administrative law, not whether something has been written or not. That is a bogus Roman law dichotomy which worked no better for them than it does for us. Francis Davey 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vernon Bogdanor makes the same distinction: pretty much all of the UK's constitution is written down (and if it is not written down in a way that is more or less legally enforceable way - in a statute or a higher court decision - then much is written about it - for example, as you say, Erskine May will give you chapter and verse on Parliamentary practices and conventions): the real point is that the UK's constitution is not codified, in the sense of being brought together into a single document. Rather, there is a rather pragmatic hodge-podge of bits and pieces all over the place.

It is worth noting that A-level Government & Politics teaches the British Constitution as an unwritten or uncodified set of sources and the Constitution of the United States as a written and codified document. Andy Heywood was the cheif examiner at the time I was studying in 2002 and writer of many of the books that are used as revision materials when revising and he too spoke of both constitutions in the same way. --Pudduh 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the A-level Government & Politics course, or Andy Heywood, is teaching people that the UK Consitution is unwritten, it and he are wrong. Uncodified. This is very important because, for instance, otherwise you will keep hearing people calling for a written Bill of Rights, as if that might actually do something. What they mean is codification, which is a very good excuse to faff about and change nothing but pretend that you are. Wik idea 13:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomatter whether you use the term unwritten or uncodified it means the same thing. Most academics and judges use unwritten (meaning unwritten in a single document). I think that noting that the constitution has this quality should be confined to just one section though. And reference, nomatter what a person's personal opinion is. Then we might get some discouse that follows the guideline. "It is said to be unwritten...but So-and-so argues the other way" - much better. Bamkin 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It matters greatly whether it says unwritten or uncodified. Unwritten is wrong, and uncodified is correct! The constitution is written in loads of places. We've got more writing than everyone. We're number one at writing in constitutions. Top dog. Big cheese. Writing everywhere. Any good public law text, e.g. Bradley and Ewing's Constitutional and Administrative Law, p.1 - will say this. Wik idea 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was really my point. I hadn't read Bogdanor on the subject, is he worth reading? Its worth saying that the United States doesn't have a codified constitution in the modern sense. The document that is referred to as the constitution does not cover some important elements of the constitution (understood in the usual sense) - for example see Marbury v Madison. In some sense very few states have properly codified constitutions since constitutional courts have a way of developing their own jurisprudence which is important but often not part of the code -- the Conseil d'Etat being a classic example, the European Court of Justice a more recent one. The nice point is that the UK's constitution is far less well codified (on a spectrum) than most others -- in other words its shades of gray. That is the headline point I'd like to see. Francis Davey 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dicey's doctrine of parliamentary supremacy does not allow much scope for entrenchment, even for non-UK law (we could leave EC law behind by leaving the EC), but it will be interesting to see how the UK Supreme Court judges approach things once they are no longer members of the House of Lords... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are ways law could be entrenched -- but nevertheless that's another important point that sets the UK apart from many other states. Francis Davey 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I think British Constitution is a better location - the Constitution is informal, and a more informal title makes more sense. john 23:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I moved the article mostly for consistancy with other politics articles - most of the other use United Kingdom not Britain. Deus Ex 23:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

British is the adjective which refers to the United Kingdom. john 23:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Increasingly though, UK or United Kingdom is used an adjective too, mainly because British can refer to of Great Britain or of British Isles and UK/United Kingdom as an adjective is less controversial. Anyway the main reason was because most of the other politics articles use United Kingdom in the title, not Britain or British. Deus Ex 18:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Its also worth pointing out that "British" might well refer to the British Isles, of which the United Kingdom is just a part.

Indeed, British suggests a confusion with Great Britain, which is a smaller entity. The state (from an international perspective) is the United Kingdom. The UK constitutional law article has more substance so a merger into it from any extra material in British followed by a suitable redirect seemt the best plan to me. Francis Davey 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Act of Union 1801

Re: Act of Union 1801...while the Union happened in 1801, wasn't the act passed in 1800, since it went into effect January 1, 1801? john 00:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

From searching the HMSO website, it would appear that it was indeed 1800. I was only changing the link because that's where the article on it is. (Incidentally, they seem to be called the "Union with England Act 1707", "Union with Scotland Act 1707" and "Union with Ireland Act 1800" [I can't find the Irish 1800 one, but I assume it was the "Union with Great Britain Act 1800"]). Proteus (Talk) 10:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of key Acts

"Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975". Is this really considered part of the constitution? DJ Clayworth 18:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, this was left over from someone's botched text move; before the move, it was made clear that this was a list of Acts considered by the Joint Committee looking at the Civil Contingencies Bill as unsuitable to be able to be waived by decree of a SoS.

I've now moved the list to where the comment about the CCB was taken. Sorry about my rollback-ing you, BTW. I hadn't noticed that the page had been borked.

James F. (talk) 00:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't the UK not have a constitution?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the UK had no constitution, as a constitution is a single written legal document describing the primary nature of a nation's government and laws? Proto 13:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget the discussion of dictionary definitions. "Constitution" just means whatever "constitutes" the body of laws governing the country/international organisation, etc. Wik idea 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. ;-)

From the OED:

constitution, n.

[...]

7. The system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, or body politic is constituted and governed. This may be embodied in successive concessions on the part of the sovereign power, implied in long accepted statutes, or established gradually by precedent, as in the British Constitution; or it may be formally set forth in a document framed and adopted on a particular occasion by the various orders or members of the commonwealth, or their representatives, as in the Constitution of the United States, the various Constitutions of France after 1790, and those of other nations, framed in imitation of these.

In the case of a written Constitution, the name is sometimes applied to the document embodying it. In either case it is assumed or specifically provided that the constitution is more fundamental than any particular law, and contains the principles with which all legislation must be in harmony.

This sense gradually arose out of the prec. between 1689 and 1789: see the early quots.

1689 Declar. Estates of Scotl. 11 Apr., Whereas King James the Seventh..did by the advice of wicked and evil counsellers invade the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotick power.]

1735-8 BOLINGBROKE On Parties 108 By Constitution We mean, whenever We speak with Propriety and Exactness, that Assemblage of Laws, Institutions and Customs, derived from certain fix'd Principles of Reason..that compose the general System, according to which the Community hath agreed to be govern'd.

1750 CHESTERFIELD Lett. (1774) III. 2 England is now the only monarchy in the world that can properly be said to have a constitution.

1789 Constit. U.S. Preamb., We..do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[...]

... which is quite clear, I feel.

James F. (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. People often say the UK has no constitution when what they mean is: it has no codified constitution. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it's something I didn't know much about (*ashamed*) ... now I do! Proto 14:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that people dont understand this is a reason the there should not be merged - this article should be about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and how it has evolved with the nation from absolute monarchy to social democracy. The constitution is seperate from the laws it produces. --Ehouk1 14:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the UK doesn't have a constitution. This is because there's no distinction, and no formal way of distinguishing, between laws with constitutional importance and normal laws. Parliament can amend them just the same. So effectively, the UK has no constitution. Rowan 26 Jan 2005

I agree with Rowan. The UK has no constitution. This is really silly "we have a constitution, just no document, and no entrenchment, and parliament can do whatever it wants." That is the same as no consitution, just a parliamentry system. There should be a section that summarizes the argument that the UK has no consitution. I really can't imagine there isn't an article somewhere that could be referenced and appropriately sourced. Sandwich Eater 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, do you have any basis for asserting this? "Constitution" is a well respected and much used term in both political theory and in public law. In both disciplines, it is commonplace to say that the UK has a constitution. There is no academic argument that I am aware of (and I work in this field) that the UK has no constitution. What do you mean by a constitution? Why chose that definition? We have a department of constitutional affairs that deals with our constitution. No-one seriously doubts this. Some years ago I heard a talk by Sandra Day O'Connor, then US Supreme Court justice, comparing the US and UK constitutions. It was attended by a large number of specialists in the field. No-one suggested that the UK didn't have a constitution.

By the way your edit rather reads like an attempt to argue the issues, which you should do here not on the main page. Dicey will not help you -- he was happy with the notion that the UK did have a constitution. Whether there are limits on the UK Parliament is a tricky question and may differ between English and Scottish law, for instance, so please don't make assumptions about the whole state by extrapolating what you know about one (England and Wales). The fact that we have a constitution in which Parliament is supreme doesn't mean we don't have a constitution at all. The fact you think it is "just silly" may be because you haven't really thought about what a constitution is, or know what one is. Fine, but don't assume that wikipedia needs to reflect that ignorance. Francis Davey 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All I did on the main page was move a block of text to a new section. I added very little text. I cannot believe that there has never been any scholar to question the idea that an unlimited parliament could claim to have an unwritten constitution to limit it.

Here's one from a quick yahoo search, though it isn't authoritative enough for a good citation:

http://experts.about.com/q/Britain-350/UK-Constitution.htm. So political scientists have defined a constitution very loosely.

Here is a dictionary definition of constitution:

"The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

Since the parliament has no limits I'd say it has no constitution. Everything I read seems to suggest "Well, if they did this there would be a backlash because of X", where X is the rule of law, tradition, the freedom-loving nature of the people et cetera. Seems to me that history is rife with X not working to curtail governments in the past.

Anyway, enough of my opinions. I will take up your challenge of finding a citation.Sandwich Eater 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The government and Parliament aren't the same thing. Even the current government - who maintain a strong party discipline and have a comfortable majority in the commons - can't ignore Parliament. The quotation you give talks about something that prescribes the nature... of a government or another institution. There are many constitutional limits on the behaviour of government and other institutions. There may be limits on what Parliament can do in Scotland (its not my area of practice) but they may not be justiciable - which is another matter. No-one is suggesting that the English Parliament is limited by some justiciable constitutional law of any kind. That doesn't mean that England is an anarchy - there is a constitution. You may have misunderstood what a constitution is - that's what the article is for. Hopefully others will comment. Francis Davey 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us re-examine that definition:

"The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

In particular the last part of this sentance:

"..limits of a government or another institution."

The Bill of Rights, which was a result from the Glorius Revolution of 1688, stipulates precisely the concept that Parliament is sovereign. This is an express limit and check on the position of the Crown, a vital institution of government and thus, under that dictionary definition counts as part of a fundemental part of the statute.

This is part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom and thus, under that dictionary definition, the United Kingdom does have a Constitution.

If this example does not satisfy you, that is but a mere tip of an 800 year old iceberg.--Pudduh 12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the dictionary-definition doesn't resemble usage, then the definition is wrong. People see a constitution as a written base-law which trumps all others and which is hard, if not impossible, to amend. England has no such document. On the contrary, parliament is sovereign rather than the constitution. It's not enough to say that England "effectively" has no constitution. It has none, no more than it has a president or a border with Peru.

To contradict myself above (!), there is a view that certain European Union documents trump all British base-law and are de facto the UK's constitution.

I must ask whether the person who sees a constitution as 'a written base-law which trumps all others and which is hard, if not impossible, to amend' is American. This is because most Americans do define a constitution like this, but only becuase the only constitution of which they have any knowledge is their own and does fit the definition. However, I know of no-one who has studied politics and would say that Britain has no constitution. I apologise if the person in question isn't american. 172.141.130.245 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase the great Samuel Goldwyn: "The British Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on!" 86.132.105.90 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Constitutionalism

I disagree that there is a lack concept of British constitutionalism as stated by the article. I agree that a name change is in order, because the title implies a single document exists. --Dlatimer 02:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not it doesn't, unless the reader doesn't know what a "constitution" is, all the more reason to keep the article "as is". It describes (not at all badly) the constitution of a state -- the United Kingdom. An significant feature is that the UK has no traditional distinction between grades of law. ALthough Laws LJ has explored the idea of "constitutional acts" in Thoburn, there is no indication that anyone else will take the slightest bit of notice.

Can you expand on "I disagree....article" I don't see that there myself. Francis Davey 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't!

British Constitutional Law and the UK Constitution are entirely different subjects! In the LSE library, for example, there are two entirely different sections for each of them. The UK constitution should continue to have its own article.

[edit] Civil Contingencies Bill

The article "Civil Contingencies Bill" redirects here, which is understandable as the subject does deal with constitutional issues. However, there's no mention of said bill in this article.

I suggest either a mention is added here for anyone researching the bill, or the redirection is removed and an article on the bill itself created. Unfortunately, as I came here to research the bill which I know little about, I don't feel qualified to write such an article myself. JulesH 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed; it should have redirected to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and now it does.

James F. (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British v English v Scottish

I must object to the terms of this discussion, on the grounds that English and Scottish constitutional law may be distinguished; for example, a prerogative power may exist in Scotland, but not in England, or vice-versa (Consider the preliminary statements about the identity of Scottish and English law in the case before the House in Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate (1965)). - An objector.

[edit] BBC linking this article

This article has been linked from the BBC website [1]--Doc ^ask? 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is somewhat biased in favour of UK

To say the US Constitution is rigid is untrue; it makes it sound like it is defacto law. In fact, the US Constitution is not rigid at all, it can be, and has been, changed many times through amendments, and there are several. It is just that it is more difficult to change the US Constitution, as it must be done by a super majority of the house and senate and 2/3's of the 50 states. This was done to ensure it is the absolute will of the people that they want an amendment made.

Biased in favour of the UK? The article is about the UK... Im sure there is an article on the US constitution you can contribute to.Celticbattlepants 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The more rigid entrenched nature of the US constitution over that of the UK is often quoted as an advantage of the US constition!BaseTurnComplete 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just browsing in passing. Thought I'd add a note that should be clear enough anyway, but for the avoidance of doubt of any others surfing here... Any US constitutional 'advantages' (which presumably means to have a benefit to the society under the relevant constitution) would have to be clearly set out and explained. There are significant elements of the US constitution (viz-a-viz the British arrangements) which can and are cited to be 'disadvantages'.--Phillip Fung 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of reading it the other way up. The article currently seems to have a slight slant towards the view that this system is disdvantageous, and I keep going "but where's the up-side?" I suspect it depends on your own PoV. --81.174.244.104 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with the previous comment. Underlying some parts of the article seems to be the assumption that having a codified constitution, after the style of the United States, provides an inherently superior system, and that the disadvantages of the UK's position somehow need to be made clear. A great deal, for example, is made of the "theory" that Parliament has the legislative power to do whatever it likes. This, of course, is an horrific misrepresentation of the actual situation. For one thing, it completely ignores the historical background to the system – primarily to curb the monarch's power – and ignores the reality that no sane MP would attempt such a thing because of the political backlash which would ensue. In line with previous comments, it is simply an unwarranted assumption to suggest that UK citizens are somehow toiling under the pressure of a bad system of government; it is one which has evolved over many centuries, and, I think, entrenched (unfortunate word?) is a strong sense of how things are and aren't done. To appeal to theoretical technicalities seems to misunderstand how the UK's particular flavour of government operates.--Walafrid 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not ridged, perhaps but certainly inflexible. According to Dicey’s definition of the terms a flexible Constitution is "one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body". Is that true of the US Constitution? …It isn’t by the way. --Tyrfing 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Written Constitution

Surely it is incorrect to say that the British constitution is unwritten? It is, in fact, almost, if not all, written down somewhere. Some, as has been said in the article, is a part of statue law, which is clearly written. This 'written' issue is chiefly about constitutional conventions. Walter Bagehot was one of those who wrote about the constitution. Many text books write about constitutional conventions. In fact, I would be willing to wager that all that could reasonably be said to be constitutional in a British constitutional sense is actually written somewhere in a book or document that is regarded as being a serious work. What is true is that none of this written evidence outside of statue law has much in the way of legal standing. If this article is to be clear about the British constitution then some rewriting should be done to remove the written/unwritten issue, and clarify it that only some of the constitution has formal legal standing whilst other parts does not. It might be more concise to say "unwritten", but it is not true.--Phillip Fung 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a point I made above. The written/unwritten dichotomy (said of law) is Roman in origin and was as useless then as now. Francis Davey 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efforts to Create a Written Constitution

I thought it might be a nice addition to the article to capture some of the discussion around creating a written constitution in the UK (eg Lord Scarman et al) and his fears that the less concise Constution as it stands could be more open to catasrophe. An example of potential crisis that comes to mind would be the fears of the cold-war era prime ministor that Lord Mountbatten and the Royals were going to stage a coup and replace him, et cetera. Sandwich Eater 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thailand's 19 sept 2006 coup a month prior to a planned election is eerily remeniscent of the fears of the cold-war era prime-minister who feared coup leaders in the UK had tacit support from the royal family. Does Thailand have a written constitution? What impact does this have on the perceived stability of constitutional monarchies globally? Sandwich Eater 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt having a "written constitution" (whatever you mean by that) would make things any easier here. We have successfully avoided excesses of royal power for some time with a parliamentary democracy, when royal power was much more widespread and assumed. A coup by "Lord Mountbaten and the Royals" would have been unlawful in all kinds of ways, I'm not sure that having more laws to prevent it would help. Francis Davey 12:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. For some of the background to this, perhaps look at Edward III's reign, where the House of Commons challenged the king for the very first time. By that time, it had become the Common's prerogative to grant taxes which the king demanded, an important bargaining tool against a monarch who seemed to be running amok with the country's money. --Walafrid 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oath of Allegiance

Do soldiers in the UK swear allegiance to the crown or to the constitution? Sandwich Eater 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Members of the armed forces swear an oath to the Sovereign, because she is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Lapafrax 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The question assumes that the UK has a US-style document of Constitution, which is simply not the case. There is really no document to swear allegiance to. --Walafrid 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

actually british armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and his or her representative; meaning Parliament as one the uk's constitutional principles is that the monarch is a constituional monarch holding no real power but a ceromonial role

[edit] courts can review legislation???

It is stated in the article that UK legislation is subject to judicial review. Parliamentary Soverignty provides that the judiciary can never question statute. They may rule when two statutes are in direct conflict - this is different. Another user has already question the validity. I will remove if nobody (with an authoritive source) objects. Bamkin 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Bamkin 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The judicial review, I think, is of the exercise of power by a public authority under Parliamentary legislation. So in a way it's not incorrect to say that legislation is subject to judicial review - it is because they're reviewing what public authorities are allowed to do under the law, and then of course that's compared with whatever the authority has done and is usually being complained of. The result might be that the public authority's decision or action is upheld or that they must compensate the claimant or be compelled to take action. But yes, there's no scope for the judiciary overturning Parliamentary legislation. The most that they may do is "reinterpret" it under the Human Rights Act (which can go quite far) or say that it is incompatible and provide compensation. Parliament would then change it to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Is Parliamentary sovereignty affected? No, because Parliament passed the Human Rights Act. But it's a difficult area of legal theory and I think if this can be made clearer in the article it could help. Wik idea 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Judicial Review is review of discretionary powers exercised by Ministers, judicial review never questions the statute under which this power is 'given'. Judicial review ensures that statute is adhered to. If it is not, the statute remains intact although action maybe taken against the minister. I totally agree that in practice 'interpretation' can go quite far indeed. Bamkin 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

British courts can disallow an act of Parliament if it conflicts with European laws or treaties. In fact, they have been doing so since the late 1980s. EU law always has precedence over an ordinary act of Parliament unless Parliament explicitly makes a declaration to the contrary in the actual wording of the act. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Communities Act, does Parliament really have the right to repeal it on its own??

There is an argument that Parliament can't really repeal the European Act Unilaterally, since to withdraw from the EU requires the consent of all member states- (it's would basically require an ammendment to the Treaty of Rome- since the European Community and Union is Permanent, (unlike for example European Steel and Coal Community which was time limited I think?). Indeed the ditched EU Constitution in fact had a provision to allow unilateral withdrawal, and so that implies the power to withdraw doesn't exist. Granted at the moment this is a somewhat theoretical debate, since only Greenland so far has ever left the EC/EU, (and Greenland of course is part of Denmark- so only "a bit" of a country has ever left. So basically if you accept that to leave the EU lawfully requires an ammendment to the Treaties, an Act of Parliament purporting to Repeal the 1972 Communities Act would have no more validity than the legislation passed by say the Alabama Legislature to withdraw from the USA during the American Civil War era. Comments please from anyone who knows anything about this- (preferably a Law Lord or Member of the European Court of Justice, or both, but anyone who's thought about this question would be welcome). Comentate 23:38, 19 May 2007 (GMT)

If it was the will of the British Parliament to withdraw from the EU, I can't see how other member states could stop them from doing so. Legally in the UK no Parliament can forever bind a future Parliament so MPs and Lords assembled are free to repeal the 1972 Act if they so wished. From the EU's viewpoint, I don't accept the argument that because the unilateral exit clause is in the EU Constitution then it means it doesn't apply now, the Greenland example is the only one and I think it is the most likely course for withdrawal in the future (if that indeed ever happens again). Physically other member states are unlikely to try and force Britain to still be a member (re Alabama), and I doubt they would try.--Johnbull 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about Factortame- that case shows that a Parliament can bind a future one, (Merchant Shipping Act was ruled as "ultra vires" effectively), and it could be the courts would rule the same about a "European Communities Withdrawal Act". In this legal debate everyone seems stuck in thinking in terms of the English, (and by extension British) tradition of "Parliamentary Sovereignty", and that this sort of case would be decided by British Courts, if the case was looked at by the European Court of Justice, they will only be looking at the validity of the Act of Parliament in relation to the Treaties, and of course ECJ judges may pay less attention to concepts such as Parliamentary Sovereignty. I suppose it's get the treaties out time! Of course if every EU state ratified the Treaty to allow UK withdrawal, it wouldn't be an issue, but what if Estona say didn't pass the necessary legislation to ratify the treaty?

Although in practical terms I don't doubt that Johnbull has it pretty much right, I suspect little practical action would be taken to stop a withdrawal attempt, (which is it itself highly unlikely in my view). And obviously the main difference with the 1860s American comparison is there wouldn't be a military attempt to stop a withdrawal, (indeed all sorts of other non-EU treaty obligations would still exist between UK and most of it's EU former partners- e.g. NATO, European Convention of Human Rights etc). Where I do possibly differ from Johnbull is in terms of the constitutional theory. What could happen is that if the European Courts still consider the UK part of the EU, after it declared "UDI", UK citizens could still be considered EU citizens, or the EU may still not allow Duty Free liquor sales on Ferries between the UK and Ireland, so there could be all sorts of oddities. (Perhaps Rhodesia would be a better analogy than Alabama?) The EU may say, well we don't agree what you did was legal, but not do anything practical to stop but may do all sorts of things to make the point that we don't recognise the UK as having left the EU. Comentate 23:35, 20 May (GMT)

Whoever says that withdrawl from the EU needs consent from all members is not very well informed. In the Draft EU Constitution they wanted to make it clear that members could withdraw - this is typical of codifying documents, they change nothing, and wrongly imply that before - or rather now, any member state be it the UK, Estonia or Germany couldn't pull out. Some countries are bound in by their own constitutions, but that it neither here nor there from the point of view of EU law. The only question is do you think we should? If yes, vote UKIP in the general election (not the European election, because that won't do much good!!) If no, then talk about how the EU can be improved, or what sort of EU you'd like to see. Wik idea 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few (not contradictory) notes here. Firstly, under the constitution of the UK, treaties cannot be binding domestically unless enacted by parliament under statute.

Secondly it has been recognised in UK courts that the European Communities Act 1972 can be (expressl only) repealed, I quote Law LJ in the High Court in possibly the only time the matter was questioned judicially: "the Parliament of the United Kingdom retained the legal power to repeal the [European Communities] 1972 Act by express legislation", reported in Thoburn v Sunderland CC [2003] QB 151 at 181-182. Also see, albiet slightly more ambiguously, Factertame [1991] 1 All ER 70. Bamkin 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Law

Assessed as B class. Very good article - probably ready or nearly ready for a GA nomination. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my ha'penny's worth, I think this is a terrible article, riven with inaccuracies, contradictions, inconsistencies and general irrelevancies, and would benefit from being re-written from scratch. It is, at present, some way even from the "B" grade which has been awarded, since that implies that the article has the "majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article", which is not the case here. A new article would contain some or all of the following elements: (1) the constitution (meaning, reasons for, historical considerations), (2) the characteristics of the constitution (unwritten, flexible, unitary government, constitutional monarchy, bicameral sovereign parliament, electoral system, ministerial responsibility, separation of powers, rule of law), (3) sources of constitutional law, (4) recent and possible future developments, and (5) criticisms. Ravenseft (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite lead paragraphs

The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law and convention under which the United Kingdom is governed.

Because the UK has no single codified documentary constitution along the lines of the Constitution of the United States, it is often said that the country has an "unwritten constitution". However, ...

I suggest a rewrite of the lead paragraphs in a way that you would like to see presented as a first impression - say what it is, not what it isn't. Perhaps, reference the US down in one of the sections, or create a subsection to mention it, if at all - it isn't important to the article's subject. And leave out the mention of an "unwritten constitution" or put it down in a section or subsection. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

In the Key Principles section it says that the European Communities Act 'supersedes' the Weights and Measures Act. Is superseded really the right word if it was in fact pre-existing?

In the 'important conventions' section it says that the monarch may draw the Prime Minister from the Lords. May s/he draw the Prime Minister from outside Parliament? (it says 'rather than... outside Parliament' before, but doesn't clarify afterwards)

LaFoiblesse (talk) 16:13, 02 June 2008 (GMT)

I've rewritten the section referring to the Weights and Measures Act - you were quite right to point out what was in fact a complete nonsense. The European Communities Act did not "supersede" the Weights and Measures Act, rather the ECA was not impliedly repealed simply by virtue of the fact that the W&MA contained a provision contrary to European law. The point of the case is that it remains for Parliament to expressly repeal the ECA (as with any other legislation), and the theory advanced by Laws LJ that certain Acts of Parliament enjoy a special constitutional status and are "entrenched" in the sense of being protected against implied repeal. As for the Monarch's choice of PM, it seems that modern practice requires the monarch to choose a person from the Commons; as indicated in Halsbury's: "[n]ominally the monarch is unfettered in the choice of her ministers, and may summon whom she pleases to fill the office of Prime Minister; nevertheless, owing to the dependence of the executive upon the support of the House of Commons, the monarch's choice, except in unusual cases, is in practice restricted to the person who seems most likely to have the support of a stable majority in the House of Commons, or, failing such a person, that politician who seems able to form an administration with a reasonable prospect of remaining in office." Lamberhurst (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)