By Tom Guyton-Day
It is first important to understand the current ‘British Constitution’ before re-designing it: The British Constitution is currently made up of six main pillars as laid out by Cocker and Jones (2015, p49): ‘Statute law’ or ‘acts of parliament’ I.e: the written down laws that appear within the statute book; ‘Common Law’: the rulings made by the judiciary, setting precedent for the future; ’Conventions’: literally conventions, traditions that have become part of the way things are done, usually only effecting the way that things are done within Parliament and the government itself. Examples include the ‘1911 Parliament Act’, in which the ability of the House of Lords to block bills passed by the elected chamber (the commons) was lost; ‘European Union Law’: This simply says that European Union law takes precedent over domestic law, if domestic laws and European Union laws were ever in contradiction, since the passing of the ‘Treaty on European Union (1992)’ (Maastricht Treaty). Further, ‘Law and Custom of Parliament’ and ‘Works of Authority’, such as that by Erskine May (Treatise on the law 1844) and A.V. Dicey (An Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution 1885).
In this piece of writing, taking inspiration from the writings of King (pp 349, 2009), in which he writes: ‘The UK, having previously been a referendum-free zone, suddenly got into the habit of holding them’, it will be made clear, there is little need for reform. The research King has carried out shows the advantages of an un-codified constitution, one that changes over time, depending on the mood of the people. It is not hard to see that having a codified constitution makes a country both immobile, but also out of touch with its people. If you look at the Spanish, codified, constitution at the moment, it is easy to see how strong this point is because the people of Catalonia (the Spanish section) have voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for independence,(Jones and Burgen 2017) but because of the rigidity and entrenched aspects of the Spanish constitution, (‘Section 167’ of the Spanish Constitution) it becomes impossible, or harder, to bow down to the will of the people and change, as the needs and wants of the people change over time.
This is rarely an issue within the UK, in which, ‘unlike in many other democratic countries, no defining constitutional moment, no moment in time when, quite suddenly, all was not as it had been.’, to quote King (pp 349 2009). In that - there has never been need for a revolution because throughout British history, the constitution has changed when and if needed. Take the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly - it was seen that the people of the devolved nations wanted and needed their own input on their own direction and as a result, the constitution was changed after referendums were held in 1997 and no ‘rebellion’, as the Spanish government have put it, was needed, showing how the current British Constitution is fit for purpose (Kerr 2017).
Further to this point, revolution has never really been on the cards within the British political system, primarily due to the fact that the British Constitution lacks rigidity (Cocker and Jones 2015). If you look at the French system, there have been five republics, each with it’s own constitution and each has been overthrown by revolution and dramatic change (Boissoneault 2017). This dramatic shift has never been needed within the British system of politics, due to the ability of the constitution to mould and adapt over time, whether that be the 1867 Reform Act, giving the right to vote and stand for elections, to men owning property or paying at least £10 in rent per year. Further, the 1918 and the 1948 Representation of the people Act, further restructure the core election principles of the British political arena and so, to suggest that a codified constitution or a political system that mirrors a codified constitution like that of the French Republic is advisable to replace the British Constitution is quite wrong, due to the likelihood and historic reference that every constitution ever created that is codified has limits and issues that are likely to be amended in the future or torn to shreds in revolution.
You could of course argue that there is such a thing as a ‘living constitution’ (pp 55 2010), as Strauss put it. The idea that just because a constitution is codified means that the constitution is restricted can be challenged. Strauss argues with the case of ‘Brown vs Board of Education’ (1955), the US Constitution is far from being entrenched, as would first seem from first glance, but is actually a relatively flexible document (Supreme Court of the United States a). The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution simply states that there ought to be ‘equality’ and this is reinforced by numerous court rulings by the supreme court, including ‘Plessy v Ferguson (1896)’ , which sets court precedent that the US Constitution ensures the equality of the individual, but does not rule segregation to be un-constitutional, and as a result of the 1955 decision (Brown v Board of Education), the US Constitution can be essentially rewritten or reinterpreted by the Court Justices of the day. This of course relies heavily upon the court that is in place at the time of judgement.
If you were to look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court of the US, you can clearly see that actually, the court is far more originalist than it was in 1955, being instead dominated with Republican leaning Supreme Court justices, as can be seen from their recent rulings (Brown 2017). So, the idea that even entrenched constitutions like that of the United States are still far too rigid to be classed as ‘living constitution’ and ultimately fail at bending to the will of the people of the day is very much alive and well.
A good example of this is the current situation with the ‘Second Amendment’ (Bennett, pp 374), in the US Constitution, in which you have one half of the United States, the Democrat leaning states wanting stricter gun control. Whilst, in the more republican leaning side of the country, in which originalism is strongest, there is more support for gun ownership than ever (refer to Pew Research Centre data 2010). So, the argument that the US Constitution is ‘living’ is fundamentally flawed because the Constitution fails to follow the needs of the US people and is far too restrictive on what is allowed in each state. This is where the current UK Constitution excels - in that, it provides a comparatively loose style of government, allowing the creation of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive, allowing the British constitution to respect the needs and wants of the different people throughout its jurisdiction, depending on the time at which they demand change, leading back to my main point that the UK Constitution, although lacking perfection, as a whole, is a constitution that stands well in the winds of change and is able to adapt to the demands of the populace, in agreement with the work of King (2009).
A further criticism to the idea of a ‘living constitution’ is that, yes the American Constitution is fairly flexible (as Strauss suggests), to the change in mood, however - this is strongly dependent upon the court justices of the day - 8 (when this was written, usually 9) unelected officials that hold the keys to the reinterpretation of the main document that holds together a democratic country. This perhaps highlights that although, Strauss makes a good point, in that - codified constitutions can clearly be adaptable. He however fails to take account of the major drawbacks. The US Constitution is only adaptable to the will of 9 people that are unelected and fail to represent the people of the United States, neither economically nor socially or democratically (Supreme Court of the United States 2017 b). So, to argue that codified constitutions can effectively, keeping to the fundamental principle that democratic will ought to be the major player, representing the wills and changes in public mood, whilst also protecting fundamental rights of the day, is quite wrong. It perhaps suggests why it has never been necessary to have a revolution in the UK, because slow political change over time, whilst remaining moderate for the day, has worked effectively, perhaps suggesting why it is not necessary to limit the will of the people with entrenched, out of date legislation that over reaches into the future era with different needs and wills, leading me to my final conclusion: to subject the British people to longterm servitude to a constitution that would represent their views and opinions for less than fifty years would be wrong.
Further, Cocker and Jones (2015) argue, the British Constitutional changes of Blair and the Labour government (1997-2010) fail to go far enough, describing them as ‘piecemeal’(pp 48) and this does carry some weight. The implementation of The Human Rights Act 1998 is a footstep towards protecting human rights; the rights are a protection against the government and the government continues to control whether or not to listen to that act, presuming they hold the majority within parliament, providing little or no protection or rights to the civilian population. However, it could be argued this is simply democracy. Is it not right that the government, elected government, of the day has the democratic right to implement policies that they see as fit (Davis 2010)? Further, there have been few cases in the last two hundred years, the time frame in which it has not been acceptable to mow down unarmed civilians with machine gun fire, in which civilians have been effected violently by decisions of government (Evans 2011). There has always been an opposition to the majority party in parliament or all important backbench MPs who see it as their main role to scrutinise their own government (Parliament 2017).
Further, in opposition to Cocker and Jones (2015), over the last couple of years, there has been little need for a codified constitution, simply due to the fact that the government of the day is quite simply incapable of passing radical legislation. The current government lacks a majority and is being held up by ten Democratic Unionist Party members (BBC News 2017). This shows how there is little room for abuse of governmental power now (or for the last seven years) because without a strong majority in the UK parliament, it is impossible to pass legislation that is deemed radical by the populace of the UK because they would face revolts by ‘small c conservative’ MPs who could turn coat at any point in our strange times (Geddes, Meakin, Thompson 2017). So, to argue that a codified constitution is necessary for the protection of the British people, rather than a piece of legislation like the Human Rights Act 1998, underestimates the current levels of scrutiny already taken by both the elected (Commons) and the unelected (Lords) chambers of Parliament, as well as the current weakness of governments since 2010 (Institute for government N/D).
To conclude, in agreement with King (2009), the British Constitution, although perhaps requiring change within the current constitutional framework, does not require massive re-design, instead - the current framework of the British Constitution provides flexibility for government to work within flexible limits, allowing governments to shrink and grow, as and when needed. It is clear to me, codified constitutions are too rigid, providing protection to moderate views for merely fifty years and fail to allow for the change in public mood, the change in structure of government and the change in different parts of the United Kingdom and therefore, I think it unnecessary to change the British Constitutional framework in any great way, leading me to disagree with Strauss on the idea that codified constitutions such as the US constitution can accurately be described as ‘living’ and changeable over time and leading to the conclusion, the British Constitution is not in need of great reform or ‘re-design’.
In this piece of writing, taking inspiration from the writings of King (pp 349, 2009), in which he writes: ‘The UK, having previously been a referendum-free zone, suddenly got into the habit of holding them’, it will be made clear, there is little need for reform. The research King has carried out shows the advantages of an un-codified constitution, one that changes over time, depending on the mood of the people. It is not hard to see that having a codified constitution makes a country both immobile, but also out of touch with its people. If you look at the Spanish, codified, constitution at the moment, it is easy to see how strong this point is because the people of Catalonia (the Spanish section) have voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for independence,(Jones and Burgen 2017) but because of the rigidity and entrenched aspects of the Spanish constitution, (‘Section 167’ of the Spanish Constitution) it becomes impossible, or harder, to bow down to the will of the people and change, as the needs and wants of the people change over time.
This is rarely an issue within the UK, in which, ‘unlike in many other democratic countries, no defining constitutional moment, no moment in time when, quite suddenly, all was not as it had been.’, to quote King (pp 349 2009). In that - there has never been need for a revolution because throughout British history, the constitution has changed when and if needed. Take the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly - it was seen that the people of the devolved nations wanted and needed their own input on their own direction and as a result, the constitution was changed after referendums were held in 1997 and no ‘rebellion’, as the Spanish government have put it, was needed, showing how the current British Constitution is fit for purpose (Kerr 2017).
Further to this point, revolution has never really been on the cards within the British political system, primarily due to the fact that the British Constitution lacks rigidity (Cocker and Jones 2015). If you look at the French system, there have been five republics, each with it’s own constitution and each has been overthrown by revolution and dramatic change (Boissoneault 2017). This dramatic shift has never been needed within the British system of politics, due to the ability of the constitution to mould and adapt over time, whether that be the 1867 Reform Act, giving the right to vote and stand for elections, to men owning property or paying at least £10 in rent per year. Further, the 1918 and the 1948 Representation of the people Act, further restructure the core election principles of the British political arena and so, to suggest that a codified constitution or a political system that mirrors a codified constitution like that of the French Republic is advisable to replace the British Constitution is quite wrong, due to the likelihood and historic reference that every constitution ever created that is codified has limits and issues that are likely to be amended in the future or torn to shreds in revolution.
You could of course argue that there is such a thing as a ‘living constitution’ (pp 55 2010), as Strauss put it. The idea that just because a constitution is codified means that the constitution is restricted can be challenged. Strauss argues with the case of ‘Brown vs Board of Education’ (1955), the US Constitution is far from being entrenched, as would first seem from first glance, but is actually a relatively flexible document (Supreme Court of the United States a). The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution simply states that there ought to be ‘equality’ and this is reinforced by numerous court rulings by the supreme court, including ‘Plessy v Ferguson (1896)’ , which sets court precedent that the US Constitution ensures the equality of the individual, but does not rule segregation to be un-constitutional, and as a result of the 1955 decision (Brown v Board of Education), the US Constitution can be essentially rewritten or reinterpreted by the Court Justices of the day. This of course relies heavily upon the court that is in place at the time of judgement.
If you were to look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court of the US, you can clearly see that actually, the court is far more originalist than it was in 1955, being instead dominated with Republican leaning Supreme Court justices, as can be seen from their recent rulings (Brown 2017). So, the idea that even entrenched constitutions like that of the United States are still far too rigid to be classed as ‘living constitution’ and ultimately fail at bending to the will of the people of the day is very much alive and well.
A good example of this is the current situation with the ‘Second Amendment’ (Bennett, pp 374), in the US Constitution, in which you have one half of the United States, the Democrat leaning states wanting stricter gun control. Whilst, in the more republican leaning side of the country, in which originalism is strongest, there is more support for gun ownership than ever (refer to Pew Research Centre data 2010). So, the argument that the US Constitution is ‘living’ is fundamentally flawed because the Constitution fails to follow the needs of the US people and is far too restrictive on what is allowed in each state. This is where the current UK Constitution excels - in that, it provides a comparatively loose style of government, allowing the creation of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive, allowing the British constitution to respect the needs and wants of the different people throughout its jurisdiction, depending on the time at which they demand change, leading back to my main point that the UK Constitution, although lacking perfection, as a whole, is a constitution that stands well in the winds of change and is able to adapt to the demands of the populace, in agreement with the work of King (2009).
A further criticism to the idea of a ‘living constitution’ is that, yes the American Constitution is fairly flexible (as Strauss suggests), to the change in mood, however - this is strongly dependent upon the court justices of the day - 8 (when this was written, usually 9) unelected officials that hold the keys to the reinterpretation of the main document that holds together a democratic country. This perhaps highlights that although, Strauss makes a good point, in that - codified constitutions can clearly be adaptable. He however fails to take account of the major drawbacks. The US Constitution is only adaptable to the will of 9 people that are unelected and fail to represent the people of the United States, neither economically nor socially or democratically (Supreme Court of the United States 2017 b). So, to argue that codified constitutions can effectively, keeping to the fundamental principle that democratic will ought to be the major player, representing the wills and changes in public mood, whilst also protecting fundamental rights of the day, is quite wrong. It perhaps suggests why it has never been necessary to have a revolution in the UK, because slow political change over time, whilst remaining moderate for the day, has worked effectively, perhaps suggesting why it is not necessary to limit the will of the people with entrenched, out of date legislation that over reaches into the future era with different needs and wills, leading me to my final conclusion: to subject the British people to longterm servitude to a constitution that would represent their views and opinions for less than fifty years would be wrong.
Further, Cocker and Jones (2015) argue, the British Constitutional changes of Blair and the Labour government (1997-2010) fail to go far enough, describing them as ‘piecemeal’(pp 48) and this does carry some weight. The implementation of The Human Rights Act 1998 is a footstep towards protecting human rights; the rights are a protection against the government and the government continues to control whether or not to listen to that act, presuming they hold the majority within parliament, providing little or no protection or rights to the civilian population. However, it could be argued this is simply democracy. Is it not right that the government, elected government, of the day has the democratic right to implement policies that they see as fit (Davis 2010)? Further, there have been few cases in the last two hundred years, the time frame in which it has not been acceptable to mow down unarmed civilians with machine gun fire, in which civilians have been effected violently by decisions of government (Evans 2011). There has always been an opposition to the majority party in parliament or all important backbench MPs who see it as their main role to scrutinise their own government (Parliament 2017).
Further, in opposition to Cocker and Jones (2015), over the last couple of years, there has been little need for a codified constitution, simply due to the fact that the government of the day is quite simply incapable of passing radical legislation. The current government lacks a majority and is being held up by ten Democratic Unionist Party members (BBC News 2017). This shows how there is little room for abuse of governmental power now (or for the last seven years) because without a strong majority in the UK parliament, it is impossible to pass legislation that is deemed radical by the populace of the UK because they would face revolts by ‘small c conservative’ MPs who could turn coat at any point in our strange times (Geddes, Meakin, Thompson 2017). So, to argue that a codified constitution is necessary for the protection of the British people, rather than a piece of legislation like the Human Rights Act 1998, underestimates the current levels of scrutiny already taken by both the elected (Commons) and the unelected (Lords) chambers of Parliament, as well as the current weakness of governments since 2010 (Institute for government N/D).
To conclude, in agreement with King (2009), the British Constitution, although perhaps requiring change within the current constitutional framework, does not require massive re-design, instead - the current framework of the British Constitution provides flexibility for government to work within flexible limits, allowing governments to shrink and grow, as and when needed. It is clear to me, codified constitutions are too rigid, providing protection to moderate views for merely fifty years and fail to allow for the change in public mood, the change in structure of government and the change in different parts of the United Kingdom and therefore, I think it unnecessary to change the British Constitutional framework in any great way, leading me to disagree with Strauss on the idea that codified constitutions such as the US constitution can accurately be described as ‘living’ and changeable over time and leading to the conclusion, the British Constitution is not in need of great reform or ‘re-design’.
Bibliography:
BBC NEWS. (2017). RESULTS. BBC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results . Accessed: 13th November 2017.
BENNETT, A.J. (2009). US Government & Politics, 3rd edition. Oxfordshire, London.
BROWN, T. (2017). Trump Supreme Court pick: Who are the current eight justices? BBC NEWS. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33103973 . Accessed: 15th November 2017.
BOISSONEAULT, L. (2017). Why Is France in Its Fifth Republic? Smithsonian. [Online]. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-france-its-fifth-republic-180962983/ . Accessed: 8th November 2017.
BUTLER, D. (1994). Electoral Reform. JEFFREY, J. OLIVER,D. (Editors). The changing Constitution. Oxford. Clarendon Press. Pp 379-391.
DAVIS, F. (2010). The Human Rights Act and Juridification: Saving Democracy from Law. Politics. Vol 30(2). Pp 91-97. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01371.x . Accessed: 15th November 2017.
DICEY, A. V., and A. V. DICEY. (1985) The Law of the Constitution, 8th edition. ProQuest Ebook Central, available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dmu/detail.action?docID=3327329. Accessed 8th November 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (June 1949) The Bonn Constitution Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4157353;view=1up;seq=3 Accessed 8th November 2017.
EVANS, E. (2011). A British Revolution in the 19th Century? BBC, History. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/revolution_01.shtml . Accessed: 9th November 2017.
GEDDES, M. MEAKIN, A. THOMPSON, L. (2017). Weak government, strong parliament? A preview of Theresa May’s legislative challenges . [Weblog] British Politics and Policy. 20th June 2017. Available from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/weak-government-strong-parliament/ Accessed: 12th November 2017.
HARVEY, J. BATHER, L. (1977) THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION, 4th edition. London.
Human Rights Act 1998. Available at : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/pdfs/ukpga_19980042_en.pdf Accessed: 12th November 2017.
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT. (N/D). Passing Legislation. INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/whitehall-monitor-2017/passing-legislation . Accessed: 9th November 2017.
JONES, S. BURGEN, S. (October 2017) Catalan referendum: preliminary results show 90% in favour of independence. The Guardian. [Online] 02/10. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/01/dozens-injured-as-riot-police-storm-catalan-ref-polling-stations . Accessed: 7th November 2017.
KERR, A. (2017). Scottish devolution referendum: The birth of a parliament. BBC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41189455 . Accessed: 10th November 2017.
KING, A. (2009) The British Constitution. Available at: http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=238231 Accessed 8th November 2017
MAY, E. (1844). A TREATISE UPON THE LAW, PRIVILEGES, PROCEEDINGS AND USAGE. London, UK.
Accessible at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t81j9gt2r;view=1up;seq=1 Accessed 8th November 2017
MORAN, M. (2010). Public Administration. THE NEW BRITISH CONSTITUTION. Volume 88, Issue 4th December, 2010. Pages 1131–1132. Accessible at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01878_1.x/full Accessed 8th November 2017
PARLIAMENT. (2017). UK Election Statistics: 1918-2017. [Online]. Available at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7529 . Accessed 14th November 2017.
Parliament Act 1911. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/house-of-lords-reform/from-the-collections/from-the-parliamentary-collections-the-parliament-act/parliament-act-1911/ . Accessed 8th November 2017
PASHAKHANLOU. (November 2017) Thanks to the referendum, the tyranny of the majority has prevailed. LSE Blogs. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/28/thanks-to-the-referendum-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-has-prevailed/ Accessed 6th November 2017.
PEW RESEARCH CENTRE (2010). Public Divided Over State, Local Laws Banning Handguns, MARCH 23, 2010. Accessible at: http://www.people-press.org/2010/03/23/public-divided-over-state-local-laws-banning-handguns/#shifting-views-on-gun-control Accessed on: 9th November 2017
Representation of the people act (1876). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1867/102/pdfs/ukpga_18670102_en.pdf . Accessed: 12th November 2017.
Representation of the people act, 1948 (1948). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1948/65/pdfs/ukpga_19480065_en.pdf Accessed: 12th November 2017.
Spanish Constitution (1978). Available at: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/documents/constitucion_inglescorregido.pdf Accessed 7th November 2017
STRAUSS, D.A. (2010) The Living Constitution. Accessible at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dmu/reader.action?docID=510307 Accessed on 9th November 2017
Supreme Court of the United States a. (1955) Accessible at: https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/brown-v-board/images/decision.jpg Accessed: 9th November 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES b. (2017). Justices. [Online]. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx . Accessed: 13th November 2017.
TOCQUEVILLE and introduction by RYAN, A. (1994) Democracy in America. London, UK.
BBC NEWS. (2017). RESULTS. BBC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results . Accessed: 13th November 2017.
BENNETT, A.J. (2009). US Government & Politics, 3rd edition. Oxfordshire, London.
BROWN, T. (2017). Trump Supreme Court pick: Who are the current eight justices? BBC NEWS. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33103973 . Accessed: 15th November 2017.
BOISSONEAULT, L. (2017). Why Is France in Its Fifth Republic? Smithsonian. [Online]. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-france-its-fifth-republic-180962983/ . Accessed: 8th November 2017.
BUTLER, D. (1994). Electoral Reform. JEFFREY, J. OLIVER,D. (Editors). The changing Constitution. Oxford. Clarendon Press. Pp 379-391.
DAVIS, F. (2010). The Human Rights Act and Juridification: Saving Democracy from Law. Politics. Vol 30(2). Pp 91-97. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01371.x . Accessed: 15th November 2017.
DICEY, A. V., and A. V. DICEY. (1985) The Law of the Constitution, 8th edition. ProQuest Ebook Central, available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dmu/detail.action?docID=3327329. Accessed 8th November 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (June 1949) The Bonn Constitution Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4157353;view=1up;seq=3 Accessed 8th November 2017.
EVANS, E. (2011). A British Revolution in the 19th Century? BBC, History. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/revolution_01.shtml . Accessed: 9th November 2017.
GEDDES, M. MEAKIN, A. THOMPSON, L. (2017). Weak government, strong parliament? A preview of Theresa May’s legislative challenges . [Weblog] British Politics and Policy. 20th June 2017. Available from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/weak-government-strong-parliament/ Accessed: 12th November 2017.
HARVEY, J. BATHER, L. (1977) THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION, 4th edition. London.
Human Rights Act 1998. Available at : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/pdfs/ukpga_19980042_en.pdf Accessed: 12th November 2017.
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT. (N/D). Passing Legislation. INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/whitehall-monitor-2017/passing-legislation . Accessed: 9th November 2017.
JONES, S. BURGEN, S. (October 2017) Catalan referendum: preliminary results show 90% in favour of independence. The Guardian. [Online] 02/10. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/01/dozens-injured-as-riot-police-storm-catalan-ref-polling-stations . Accessed: 7th November 2017.
KERR, A. (2017). Scottish devolution referendum: The birth of a parliament. BBC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41189455 . Accessed: 10th November 2017.
KING, A. (2009) The British Constitution. Available at: http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=238231 Accessed 8th November 2017
MAY, E. (1844). A TREATISE UPON THE LAW, PRIVILEGES, PROCEEDINGS AND USAGE. London, UK.
Accessible at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t81j9gt2r;view=1up;seq=1 Accessed 8th November 2017
MORAN, M. (2010). Public Administration. THE NEW BRITISH CONSTITUTION. Volume 88, Issue 4th December, 2010. Pages 1131–1132. Accessible at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01878_1.x/full Accessed 8th November 2017
PARLIAMENT. (2017). UK Election Statistics: 1918-2017. [Online]. Available at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7529 . Accessed 14th November 2017.
Parliament Act 1911. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/house-of-lords-reform/from-the-collections/from-the-parliamentary-collections-the-parliament-act/parliament-act-1911/ . Accessed 8th November 2017
PASHAKHANLOU. (November 2017) Thanks to the referendum, the tyranny of the majority has prevailed. LSE Blogs. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/28/thanks-to-the-referendum-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-has-prevailed/ Accessed 6th November 2017.
PEW RESEARCH CENTRE (2010). Public Divided Over State, Local Laws Banning Handguns, MARCH 23, 2010. Accessible at: http://www.people-press.org/2010/03/23/public-divided-over-state-local-laws-banning-handguns/#shifting-views-on-gun-control Accessed on: 9th November 2017
Representation of the people act (1876). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1867/102/pdfs/ukpga_18670102_en.pdf . Accessed: 12th November 2017.
Representation of the people act, 1948 (1948). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1948/65/pdfs/ukpga_19480065_en.pdf Accessed: 12th November 2017.
Spanish Constitution (1978). Available at: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/documents/constitucion_inglescorregido.pdf Accessed 7th November 2017
STRAUSS, D.A. (2010) The Living Constitution. Accessible at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dmu/reader.action?docID=510307 Accessed on 9th November 2017
Supreme Court of the United States a. (1955) Accessible at: https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/brown-v-board/images/decision.jpg Accessed: 9th November 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES b. (2017). Justices. [Online]. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx . Accessed: 13th November 2017.
TOCQUEVILLE and introduction by RYAN, A. (1994) Democracy in America. London, UK.
RSS Feed
