The Pros And Cons Of A Constitutional Convention

Britain might seem peaceful now, but weaponry involving warfare are prepared, and soon they will to strike, especially against the Islamic State. However, the authorization of such wars could come from various methods. Shall important matters like these be based on convention or the Royal prerogative, or should it be written down as a proper constitution instead?

Constitutional convention has no specific definition, and they supplement the laws which are enforced by the courts[ Wade, 1960]. However, these convention are not written, nor is it codified. This may not be advantageous, as the ambiguity and vagueness of it does not set the limitations of the powers of the government, In Att. Gen v. Jonathan Cape Ltd, Lord Widgery mentioned that since there is no attempts to define the extend to which Cabinet proceedings should be treated as confidential as it is a convention that Ministers are subjected to secrecy for discussions held in the cabinet, it is not surprising that there are different views on this matter.[ Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752] Having writing these convention down would solve many of the issues as such, hence making the constitution more effective.

Contrary to that, many constitutional conventions have been codified as of now, and can be found in the Ministerial Code[ Barber, ‘Against a
Since the royal prerogative powers are discretionary, it can be exercised in such a way that does not entitle to judicial review.[ Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174, pg 17] In the GCHQ case, even though there is evidence that the respondent has shown upon the courts her decision was based on considerations of national security, it shows the extent of the royal prerogative powers[ Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174, pg