British Government and the Constitution Essay Example

principles have since changed, and the constitution now revolves around the rule of Law and the supremacy of Parliament.

While it was once believed that only lawyers could claim ownership of the constitution and write about it in a narrow-minded way, a lawyer and a political scientist may now argue different views. However, it is undeniable that lawyers played a crucial role in its creation while judges and other law practitioners, political philosophers, controversialists, party organizations, peers, rebels, and many others also contributed to it significantly. Unlike other countries, the British government is not bound to follow a written charter, which may explain why they often exhibit bold actions.

Peter Hitchens, writing for The Mail on Sunday on 08-12-2002, expresses his belief that there is a prevalent ignorance in society that is characterized by left-liberal, amoral, and conformist attitudes.

In 1983, only 12% of people supported the legalization of cannabis, a dangerous and mind-altering substance.

According to current statistics, 41% of the population endorses the act of suicide as a viable policy.

. The percentage of people who believed homosexuality was wrong decreased from 70% in the Eighties to 47% due to years of persistent propaganda.

. "People's disenchantment with governmental policy is becoming more common, as the goals of parliament often fail to align with the needs and desires of the general public. It seems that soon everyone will conform to wearing the same pseudo-rebellious fashion and buying the same globalized products. While Britain may be considered a monarchy with a democratically elected government, the truth is that the Executive (government), Legislature (parliament), and Judicature (the court system) share power. These three branches of government are supposed to

operate as separate entities, known as the Separation of Powers, but in reality, they work in tandem.

The position of the Monarchy in this roster is reduced to performing customary procedures and granting titles. When Britain joined Europe in 1973, some viewed it as acquiring a constitution to govern with. It might be considered a positive development, and it could also offer an opportunity for real communism to restore its humane and moral credibility. For many years, the British government's system has been one of the most centralized in Europe, with considerably more decisions being made at the national level than in countries like Germany or Belgium. Nonetheless, both member states have accomplished a successful level of regional governance.

The amalgamation of the East and West in Germany demonstrated the importance of distributing wealth for the common good. Although hesitant steps have been taken towards regional government in Scotland and Wales over the past four years, treating these authorities as representatives of Westminster has not made a significant difference. To improve this situation, a federal system with directly elected regional authorities and clear powers would be more effective. This approach would bring decision-making closer to people's lives and reduce the influence of remote bureaucrats.

It could be advantageous for England, Britain, Europe, and humanity in general to move towards a federal system. This would provide better safeguarding of individual rights and potentially shape opinions towards a unified European federation. Rather than emphasizing unneeded laws and self-centeredness, let us focus on creating a constitution that benefits everyone.