Codified v uncodified constitution
Codified v uncodified constitution - sentence stems
4 point and counter pairs, one per theme. The opening lines that lock a balanced paragraph.
How to use these. Each pair is the opening line for a balanced paragraph - a Point and a Counter on the same theme. Read both halves aloud, then cover one side and recall it. Every body paragraph should carry both before its interim judgement.
Flexibility shown
Point - the case for
Brexit statutes (2016-20) supports this: The biggest legal change since 1972 absorbed without a written constitution.
Counter - the case against
But Prorogation case (2019) cuts the other way: No written rule existed - the Court had to construct the test.
Clarity of the rules
Point - the case for
Human Rights Act (1998) supports this: Convention rights listed in one Act citizens can read.
Counter - the case against
But Brexit statutes (2016-20) cuts the other way: Sewel bypassed, prorogation litigated - the era's phrase was constitutional crisis.
Executive constrained
Point - the case for
Human Rights Act (1998) supports this: Declarations of incompatibility (Belmarsh 2004) put real pressure on ministers.
Counter - the case against
But FTPA 2011 + repeal (2022) cuts the other way: The constraint collapsed - the executive legislated around it (2019), then repealed it (2022).
Strengthens the codification case
Point - the case for
Safety of Rwanda Act (2024) supports this: For codifiers, the proof rights need entrenchment; for traditionalists, proof democracy decides.
Counter - the case against
But Brexit statutes (2016-20) cuts the other way: Flexibility is exactly what let the UK leave - codification might have locked it in.