Constitutional conventions are non-legal but nevertheless binding rules of constitutional behavior. The government's Cabinet Manual describes conventions as constitutional practices considered binding in terms of operation but not in law. This highlights that constitutional conventions play a significant role in the modern British Constitution, so much so that a handbook had to be produced to show the importance of this document to today's Britain. Moreover, rules of constitutional behavior which are considered binding by and for those who enforce the constitution, but which are not enforced by the courts... nor by the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament. Many theorists, lawyers and MPs agree to some extent that conventions are not enforced, but there are cases where conventions have played a crucial role in the outcome of a decision. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Britain is known worldwide for its uncodified constitution, as it is one of 5 countries with this system, which is often more prone to criticism. for conventions may be traced in law, but in all circumstances they are not written in law. Dicey said the conventions are not enforced by the courts. On the other hand, by recognizing conventions, courts actually apply them. Basically, if this is conceivable, its application in courts may need to change, which may become a common theme in all courtrooms to recognize conventions. Constitutional conventions are important, for example the Prime Minister's plans, such as the vote to invade Iraq before troops were deployed. This convention was first introduced in 2003 by the Labor government, to which the coalition government (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) agreed in 2011 to now hold a debate in the House of Commons before any action. This then happened in 2013 over the deployment of troops to Syria and the vote was seen as an assertion of parliamentary sovereignty. However, the convention is believed to lack clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. The assertion of parliamentary sovereignty may indicate that the Commons would like to seize the last royal prerogative powers available to the monarch, because they believe that the Commons looks after the interests of the nation. Today, most prerogatives are exercised by ministers (without needing the sovereign's approval) or through the advice they give to the sovereign, which she is constitutionally required to follow. Another common constitutional convention is the prerogative power to appoint a Prime Minister, the monarch will appoint the person who will gain the confidence of the party. However, in law the crown can appoint whomever the monarch wishes as Prime Minister, but the crown can also refuse the grant of Royal Assent. Nevertheless, the sovereign appoints the Prime Minister, but he must appoint the person best placed to receive the support of the majority in the House of Commons. This is an old constitutional convention that is still in force today in modern-day Britain. It has now become a principle to follow this convention because it can show the authority of the royal since the queen is the head of state and certain powers ofprerogative falls under the law of the monarch. This indicates that the head of state takes her role seriously, as she also follows precedents and contributes to conventions, established long ago but still emerging today as they play a key role in the constitution and government of the country. An example of a constitutional convention is ministerial responsibility, which is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's constitution. Collective Responsibility, the second prong of the convention of ministerial responsibility requires that the cabinet present a united front to the world at large. However, in the last year, David Cameron announced in his speech that there would be a clear government position, but that it would be open to each minister to take a different personal position while remaining part of the government. This suggests that conventions are flexible and can be developed or indeed abolished, but it highlights the development of constitutional conventions in today's Britain and that conventions are not often followed and can essentially be ignored , as we saw in this case with the referendum on the European Union. A large majority of people criticized David Cameron's conclusions and that he would become "the laughing stock of the world". Since this was a deep division within the cabinet on a political issue, a simple conclusion is to suspend or renounce the cabinet's collective responsibility agreement. This was extremely important for ministers who did not agree with the new policy, and instead of resigning, it was a national issue where they were allowed to express their opposing views, in order to contribute to the achievement of Brexit without harming the economic development of the country. , and not to damage long-standing relations with other partners of the European Union. However, disagreements in the public eye within the cabinet may imply that the government appears weak and that any policies being negotiated will now be criticized by the public and other institutions around the world. Furthermore, individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention that makes ministers responsible not only for their own actions, but also for those of their ministries. However, resignations are still happening, according to Edwina Currie, a minister in the Thatcher government, who claimed that "salmonella is present in most eggs" and that it had caused egg sales to fall by 60%, claiming that she intended to say "a lot" rather than "" most of the time was a slip of the tongue. On December 16, just two weeks after making comments that made her position untenable, “Eggwina” was forced to resign. This means that the agreement is still in force and has had a negative impact on her, as she was forced to resign from her government position. The role of the constitutional convention in this case was to make Edwina resign as the negative reaction would affect the government's reputation, even though Margaret Thatcher supported her as it was just a mistake, her resignation was not due to her poor performance in his position. job. However, it can be argued that this statement is due to her poor performance as she stated incorrect facts about the industry and being Minister of Health would entail knowing more about the industry and the risks it carries. Essentially, it can force influential figures to resign from their jobs. The Salisbury Convention was first introduced in 1945 by the Conservative government. This convention means that the House of Lords must not rejecton second or third reading government bills based on electoral promises. Instead, the Lords should send a contested bill back to the electorate, i.e. the Commons. It is essentially a convention which governs the relationship between the Lords and the executive. However, in recent years this constitutional convention has been broken due to the draft law on withdrawal from the European Union after consideration of numerous amendments. In essence, it is argued that the Lords have effectively destroyed the Salisbury Convention: the ruling party's manifesto promises should not be blocked by an unrepresentative upper house. This shows that conventions in today's Britain are flexible and can be ignored in certain situations. The Lords believed the Brexit negotiations were a serious matter and would require some amendments, to ensure Britain was prioritized and the deal guaranteed a victory. a win-win situation rather than a catastrophic one. The Lords are believed to have the best interests in mind when bringing forward the amendments, as this ensures that no conflicts arise within other European Union states. This shows that the conventions created in 1945 are still in force until modern Britain, where constitutional conventions may be flexible, but they are also frowned upon when ignored and not followed, as they contribute to the proper functioning of the constitution. It is not necessary for the government minister to be a member of one of the two houses of Parliament. However, in practice, the convention is that ministers must be members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords in order to report to Parliament. This constitutional convention is still in force in today's Britain, as the last minister to become a member was part of the 2010-2015 coalition government, Baroness Warsi. Ministers who are not members of the Commons or Lords can ask the party's chief whip to find them a safe seat in the Commons or to be given a peerage, which majority executive governments do. Her Majesty has the power to create life peerages giving the right to sit in the House of Lords. Gordan Brown formed his government in 2007, among which his junior ministers included a former director of the CBI who was not a parliamentarian but had to follow convention and become a life peer. This was so that he could be held accountable to the Commons for his role and ministry as part of the government. This shows the importance of this convention, as all ministers will have to be linked to an institute, which will ensure that ministers can be held accountable, in the event that their actions could lead to a backlash against the current government. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay To conclude, the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution, so the reliance on constitutional conventions has a daily impact on modern Britain. vote on the deployment of soldiers, or even appoint ministers who were not previously members of the Commons or Lords. Ministerial responsibility is considered the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's constitution. It shows the importance of such conventions within ministerial accountability and how modern conventions play an important role in the constitution as they ensure that government departments are up to the task. The role of conventions is to fill the gaps in’, 2017