“The UK needs a written constitution”
Consider the arguments for and against such a document
At the moment, the British constitution is unwritten, although it may be less misleading to call it uncodified as various elements of the constitution are written down. The term uncodified means the constitution is not all kept in a single document, but is spread about in various pieces of legislature. It also means British laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention, and recently European Union law. Although the British constitution does not have a clear set of rules in one single document, it does clearly state in various documents where political power is held, and how it is allocated.
One advantage of the uncodified constitution, which would probably be considered the main one, is that it is flexible and easy to change. This means if a new situation has to be dealt with by policies or laws, they can quickly be changed to do so. All that is needed for a policy to be changed is for Parliament to agree. Unlike written constitutions, old policies and other constitutional practices don’t make it difficult to deal with new situations, as new ones can be developed when the need arises. Opponents of a written constitution have argued “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” it could be said that the unwritten constitution of Britain has served us well up until now, and there is no call for it to be changed. The fact that America has only had twenty-seven amendments since their constitution was written in the eighteenth century only enforces how difficult it is to change laws and policies in a codified constitution. It may be difficult in cases like these to find laws that fit with modern day crimes and other situations that need to be dealt with by laws and policies. As our country is used to being able to change laws and policies as easily as we can, we must consider how we would deal with a codified constitution which makes it so much...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document