Constitutional conventions are non-legal but nevertheless binding rules of constitutional behaviour. The Government Cabinet Manual describes conventions as constitutional practices that are considered binding in operation but not in law. This highlights that constitutional conventions play significant importance in the modern British Constitution, so much so that it was necessary to produce a handbook to show the relevance of the document to Britain today. Furthermore, rules of constitutional behavior which are considered binding by and for those who administer the constitution, but which are not enforced by the courts... nor by the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament. Numerous theorists, lawyers and parliamentarians agree to some extent that conventions are not enforced, but there have been some 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Britain is world famous for its uncodified constitution as it is one of 5 countries with this system, often more subject to criticism as the conventions can be found in law but in any case are not enshrined in law law. Dicey said the conventions are not enforced by the courts. On the other hand, by recognizing conventions the courts effectively enforce them. Basically, if it is conceivable, its application in courts may need to be modified, which may become a common theme in all courtrooms to recognize conventions. Constitutional conventions are important, for example, the plans the Prime Minister has in mind, such as voting to invade Iraq before the deployment of troops. This convention was first introduced in 2003 by the Labor government, until today the coalition government (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) in 2011 have agreed from this point onwards to hold a debate within the House of Commons before that any action takes place. This was then seen in 2013, regarding the deployment of troops to Syria and the vote was seen as an assertion of parliamentary sovereignty; however, it is believed that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. The assertion of parliamentary sovereignty may indicate that the Commons would like to take the last royal prerogative powers that the monarch has, because they believe that the Commons are protecting the interests of the nation. Today, most prerogative powers are exercised by Ministers (without the need for the Sovereign's approval) or through the advice they provide to the Sovereign, which the Sovereign 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, by law the crown can appoint whomever the monarch wishes as Prime Minister, but the crown can also refuse to grant royal assent. However, the sovereign appoints the Prime Minister, but must appoint the person who is best placed to receive majority support in the House of Commons. This is an old constitutional convention that is still in place in modern Britain today. It has now become a principle to follow this convention as it can demonstrate the authority of the royal since the queen is the head of state and that some prerogative powers are under the writ of the monarch. This indicates that the head of state takes his role seriously, as he also follows precedents and contributes to the conventions, which have beenestablished long ago but are still present today as they play a key role within the country's constitution and government. An example of a constitutional convention is ministerial responsibility: this is the cornerstone of the UK constitution. Collective responsibility, the second part of the convention on ministerial responsibility requires the government to present a united front to the whole world. However, in recent years David Cameron has announced in his speech that there will be a clear government position, but that individual ministers will be free to take a different and personal position whilst remaining part of the government. This suggests that conventions are flexible and can be developed or even ceased, but this highlights the development of constitutional conventions in modern Britain and that conventions are not often followed and can essentially be ignored, as seen in this case with the referendum on the European Union. The vast majority of people have criticized what David Cameron has concluded with and which will become “a laughing stock around the world”. Since this was a deep division within the cabinet over a political issue, a simple conclusion is to suspend or waive the cabinet's collective responsibility convention. This was incredibly important for those ministers who did not agree with the new policy, and instead of resigning it was a national issue where they could express their opposing views, in order to help deliver Brexit with little harm to the economic development of the country. and so as not to jeopardize long-standing relations with the European Union's other partners. However, disagreements in the eyes of the public with the government can mean that the government appears weak and that any policies under discussion will now be criticized by the public and other institutions around the world. Furthermore, individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention that makes government ministers responsible not only for their own actions, but also for those of their departments. However, the resignations continue, according to Edwina Currie, a minister in Thatcher's government claimed that "salmonella is in most eggs" and caused egg sales to drop by 60%, her claim was that she meant "very " rather than " it was mostly a slip of the tongue. On December 16, just two weeks after making the remarks that made her position untenable, "Eggwina" was forced to resign is still in place and had a negative impact on her, as she was forced to resign from her role within the government. The role of the constitutional convention in this case was to make Edwina resign, as the reaction would influence the government's reputation even though she had Margaret Thatcher to support her as it was just a mistake, her resignation was not due to her poor performance in her job. However, it can be argued that the claim arose from her poor performance, as it has stated incorrect facts about the sector and being health minister would involve knowing more about the sector and the risks it poses. In essence, it can force high-power individuals 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 should not reject government bills based on election promises at second or third reading. Instead, the Lords should send a contested bill back to the electorate, i.e. the House of Commons. It is essentially a convention that regulates relationshipsbetween the Lords and the executive. However, in recent years this constitutional convention has been broken due to the European Union Withdrawal Bill which has taken into consideration numerous amendments. In essence it is argued that the House of Lords has effectively torn up the Salisbury Convention: that the manifesto promises of the governing party should not be blocked by an unrepresentative upper house. This shows that conventions in modern Britain are flexible and can be ignored in certain situations, the Lords believe that the Brexit negotiations are a serious matter and will need some amendments, in order to ensure that Britain has priority and that the agreement ensures a victory. victory situation rather than catastrophic. The Lords are believed to have the best interests in mind in tabling the amendments as this ensures that conflicts do not arise within other EU states. This shows that the conventions created in 1945 are still in full force as far as modern Britain, where constitutional conventions can be flexible, but it is also frowned upon when they are ignored and not followed as it helps to make the constitution run smoothly. The government minister need not be a member of either House of Parliament. In practice, however, the convention stipulates that ministers must be members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords to be accountable to Parliament. This constitutional convention is still in force in modern Britain as the last minister to become a member was in Baroness Warsi's coalition government of 2010-2015. Ministers who are not members of the House of Commons or Lords can ask the party leader to find them a safe place in the House of Commons or instead be given a peerage, which is what executive governments do majority. Her Majesty has the power to create life peerages which give the right to sit in the House of Lords. Gordan Brown formed his government in 2007, where among his young ministerial appointees was a former CBI director who was not an MP but had to follow convention and become his peer for life. This way he can be held accountable within the House of Commons for his role and his department for being part of the government. This shows that the importance of this convention as all ministers will have to be tied to an institution that ensures that ministers can be held accountable, in case their actions may cause a reaction to the current government. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay To conclude, the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution, so the use of constitutional conventions impacts modern Britain on a daily basis from voting in advance on the deployment of soldiers or even on the appointment of ministers who were not members of the House of Commons or Lords. Ministerial responsibility is called the cornerstone of the UK constitution and demonstrates the importance of such conventions within ministerial responsibility and how modern conventions play an important role within the constitution, as they ensure that government departments are at the height. The role of conventions is to fill gaps in laws where statutes do not cover them. This may be interpreted differently by the court, but conventions are still taken into account within the courtroom, but should not play a decisive role on the judgment. Constitutional conventions help manage the’, 2017