If we were to answer this question bearing in mind Ridley's analysis, tin- answer would be 'yes' since only then the
It
has to be acknowledged that the desire for a written constitution is not
universal. As the British constitutional arrangements have served it well for
several hundred years, so change is unnecessary. This may be characterized as
'if it isn't broken, don't fix it.'
Just
for the sake of argument, if we accept that there is a need for a written
constitution; problems would arise as to the content and drafting of the new
Constitution. If it were necessary to do so, it is likely that the task of
drafting would be performed by a specially constituted constitutional
convention of experts and politicians. To some extent, this has already
happened. In 1991, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published 'The
Constitution of the United
Kingdom ' consisting of 129 articles
and six Schedules. This was drafted with the desire that an example would
advance the public argument more effectively than further general discussion of
the problem which it raises and attempts to resolve. But till today, the
British people did not feel the necessity to start the procedure of adopting a
Written Constitution for the UK .
Further
Reading
Phillips,
O Hood: Constitutional and Administrative Law Hillary Barnet: Constitutional Law
E.C.S
Wade and G.G. Phillips: English Constitutional Law Neil Parpworth:
Constitutional administrative Law.
Comments
Post a Comment