Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Created by: houghton266
Created on: 19-04-15 20:51


	Should the UK have a codified constitution?
	Advantages It would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens, especially after changes such as devolution and House of Lords reform. Britain would have a two-tier legal system and so constitutional laws would be more clearly identified. The process of judicial review would be more precise and transparent. Liberals argue that it would better safeguard citizens' rights. It may prevent the further drift towards excessive executive power. The UK needs to clarify its relationship with the European Union. It would bring the UK into line with most other modern democracies.	Disadvantages The uncodified constitution is flexible and can easily adapt to changing circumstances such as referendum use and the changing role of the House of Lords. If codified, constitutional changes would be difficult and time-consuming. It can also respond quickly to a changing political climate. Conservatives argue that it is unnecessary - the UK has enjoyed a stable political system without a codified constitution for several centuries. As the UK operates under a large number of unwritten conventions, especially in relation to the monarchy and prerogative powers, it would be very difficult to transfer them into written form. The lack of constitutional constraints allows executive government to be strong and decisive. A codified constitution would bring unelected judges into the political arena.
	Evaluation A codified constitution would clarify and make accessible the limits on all three branches of government whilst helping citizens to identify their rights. It is arguable that the constitution is currently too flexible and can easily be manipulated. Other modern democracies have demonstrated the benefits of codified constitutions, for example the USA, and codified constitutions can always be amended if the need arises.

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Advantages

It would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens, especially after changes such as devolution and House of Lords reform.
Britain would have a two-tier legal system and so constitutional laws would be more clearly identified.
The process of judicial review would be more precise and transparent.
Liberals argue that it would better safeguard citizens' rights.
It may prevent the further drift towards excessive executive power.
The UK needs to clarify its relationship with the European Union.
It would bring the UK into line with most other modern democracies.

Disadvantages

The uncodified constitution is flexible and can easily adapt to changing circumstances such as referendum use and the changing role of the House of Lords. If codified, constitutional changes would be difficult and time-consuming. It can also respond quickly to a changing political climate.
Conservatives argue that it is unnecessary - the UK has enjoyed a stable political system without a codified constitution for several centuries.
As the UK operates under a large number of unwritten conventions, especially in relation to the monarchy and prerogative powers, it would be very difficult to transfer them into written form.
The lack of constitutional constraints allows executive government to be strong and decisive.
A codified constitution would bring unelected judges into the political arena.

Evaluation

A codified constitution would clarify and make accessible the limits on all three branches of government whilst helping citizens to identify their rights. It is arguable that the constitution is currently too flexible and can easily be manipulated. Other modern democracies have demonstrated the benefits of codified constitutions, for example the USA, and codified constitutions can always be amended if the need arises.

Get Revising

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Evaluation

Comments

Similar Government & Politics resources: