Unelected institutions persist such as the monarchy and House of Lords.
The Prime Minister enjoys arbitrary, prerogative powers.
There is no entrenched constitution, so the distribution of political power is uncertain.
There is a growing degree of political disengagement.
Final judgements on EU law heard in EU courts.
Arguably, political participation is declining.
EU laws currently superior to UK laws
Power has been transferred to the EU, which has weakened democratic institutions.
Tensions between central and decentralised government might increase.
Replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state
This would increase the democratic legitimacy of the head of state
Local and regional governments are smaller scale and seen as more democratic
It would make the head of state democratically accountable
The growing power of central government would be curbed
An elected head of state would be able to settle political deadlocks
A political head of state might destabilise politics
Losing the European convention on Human Rights would reduce the civil liberties that ensure liberal democracy operates in the UK.
Such a head of state might give too much power to the governing party
Introducing and elected second chamber
Decentralising the political system
The UK would regain all legal sovereignty given to the European Union
This wold increase the legitimacy of the second chamber
Citizens might take local and regional government less seriously, resulting in, for example, lower turnouts
A democratic second chamber would be an effective check on government power
An elected second chamber might be less independent
It might check government excessively
It might challenge the authority of the Commons
It would probably be just as unrepresentative as the Commons
Leaving the European Union
EU seen to be less democratic the UK political system
