"Does the United Kingdom Still Have a Constitution?" is a book written by Anthony King. It is composed of four chapters based on the Hamly Lectures delivered at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in 2000. The book also contains a short chapter written by John Bridge about the Hamlyn Trust where he talks about the founding of this cycle of lecturers, its development, and its members. This work seeks to identify the main changes in the British constitution answer the question asked in the title: "Does the United Kingdom Still Have a Constitution?" The author begins by exposing the organization and the aims of the book. The first step concerns the nature of the changes he will be dealing with. In fact, King explains that he will concentrate on the most important changes and ignore the trivial ones.
[...] Fractionated is more adequate to describe this system because power is neither hoarded nor totally shared: term seems apt, partly because over recent decades there has occurred a decisive break with the past, but also because over the same decades political power and authority in Britain have, as we have seen, been to a certain extent broken up into fractions or fragments.”[18] The final section of this chapter deals with the reasons that explain the fact that the Britain Constitution was never planned. [...]
[...] Later it had undergone many reforms so as to become as it is today. In the third chapter he studies these changes and the context that generated them. In the United Kingdom Constitution Amended”, the author examines the big changes that this constitution had known. He first explains that it was considered as a model that many countries tried to copy. This high esteem for the British constitution ended with the decline of the empire. Many considered it responsible for its fall. Dissatisfaction with the constitution gave birth to calls for reform. [...]
[...] But in the early twentieth century the United Kingdom moved to be a republic though it remained a kingdom in form. Courts too were not an autonomous source of political power. The United Kingdom courts had no say over governments unlike US Supreme Court or the French Conseil d'Etat. Furthermore, under this traditional constitution, Britain had no autonomous regional or provincial governments. Political power in the Kingdom remained in the hands of Parliament. Both Scotland and Wales acquired their own Secretary of State, but their power was very limited. [...]
[...] Second, the United Kingdom might in the future hand the control of interest rates to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. Then other changes can occur in the electoral system replacing today's system with alternative votes for a more proportional representation. Another big change would be the creation of new governmental institutions. There is also the possibility of reforming the House of Lords. Ultimately, a freedom of information act might be voted which would make political information accessible to the public. [...]
[...] However; it was a feeble institution because government had the ability cut short parliamentary debates by the Guillotine”[7]. As for the House of Lords, its power was reduced by the Parliament Act of 1911 and that of 1949. The two acts ‘stripped' the House of Lords of its Veto power. As a result of this act, the House of Lords neither here nor there”[8]. The body of the House of Lords was dominated by members of the party that won the majority in governments. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
