Description
Book SynopsisIn this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative.The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses.This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virt
Trade ReviewOver the last two decades political scientists have broadened their interest to include the constitution, and the result has been a number of informative books on the subject Ian McLean's new contribution is one of the, if not the, best of the lot. It combines enlightening history, careful empirical analysis, and provocative prescriptions this wise and thoughtful book that deserves careful attention from students of both British politics and comparative constitutions. * The British Politics Group newsletter, APSA *
Table of ContentsPART I INTRODUCTION; PART II THE CONSTITUTION FROM BELOW; PART III THE EROSION OF DICEYAN IDEOLOGY; PART IV THINGS TO LEAVE OUT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION; PART V THINGS TO PUT IN
