Once widely admired, especially during the seventeenth century by French philosophers, the British constitution has now become a target for criticism. There have been strong debates regarding constitutional reforms that emerged after the democratic reforms of the nineteenth century to the criticisms of the House of Lords since 1911 or of the « first past the post » ballot system. The theme of the debate goes on to describe that the two main parties seem to differ not on economic or social matters but on the subject of a constitutional reforms. It is therefore essential to present the predominant principles of the constitution before addressing the main reforms forecast by the labor government.
[...] Since the Parliament Act of 1911, it has only had power to delay a law during two sessions of Parliament. This delay was reduced to one session of Parliament in 1949. The main commentators of the constitution Since Britain has no written constitution, the comments and views expressed by some majors political thinkers are decisive to understand it. Thus, we shall present briefly the two main thinkers on the British constitution, namely Walter Bagehot (The English Constitution, 1867) and Albert Dicey (The Law of the Constitution, 1885). [...]
[...] He distinguished the dignified part of the institutions from the efficient part. The dignified part, the Monarch and the House of Lords, has no real power. It only excites and preserves the reverence of the people The efficient part, the House of Commons and the Cabinet, is the one by which the constitution works and rules Albert Dicey underlined two main principles of the British constitution : the legal sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. He saw three main consequences to the rule of law. [...]
[...] The monarchy would certainly be the next institution to abolish. Would it be, as expressed by The Economist, an idea whose time has passed ? Conclusion The reforms of the nineteenth century aimed at a more democratic Britain. Now that universal franchise is achieved and that Britain is in fact the disguised republic described by Bagehot, new ambitions seem to occur. The purpose of the reformers seems not to strengthen democracy but to change the way Britain is governed, to make it closer to the systems of other developed nations. [...]
[...] The debate about constitutional reform has been fierce throughout the twentieth century. The main questions have been the reform of the ballot system, the reform of the House of Lords, the necessity of a new Bill of Rights and devolution. On all these questions, the main advocates of a reform have always been the Liberals, and the Liberal Democrats after them, and the Labour party for some of these subjects. The current propositions for a constitutional reform Devolution is bound to become a reality in Britain with the elections of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. [...]
[...] The rôle of the monarch is also important, though declining, in international affairs as head of the Commonwealth. The House of Commons is the centre of legitimacy and authority. There is no separation of powers in Britain, and Parliament - that is, the House of Commons - may override any jurisprudence or change the statute at any time. : no law has a superior authority. Where statutes exist, the courts have no power to question it. Nevertheless the government takes in fact most initiatives. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
