Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Created by: olivert5
Created on: 07-03-19 20:36


	Should the UK have a codified constitution?
	Advantages A codified constitution is clear and accessibly to all citizens (political participation) - additionally provides clarity in political disputes Public trust in politicians is at an all time low, and we experience elective dictatorship, despite being elected by a minority of the public. A codified constitution would limit government and end parliamentary sovereignty. Create a further tier to the citizens and add safeguard to citizens rights as it is entrenched. Would stop governments changing the constitution except from with a super majority, eg. British Bill of Rights. Senior judges would have more power to strike down laws and make binding decisions - this means the constitution is mobile. Would protect the rights of citizens more securely - eg. the HRA not being parliamentary binding. Most other democracies have codified constitutions. Conventions are too significant in government - arguably they should not be this way as it enhances the powers of the executive. Significant areas where we lack clarity, for example the powers of the monarch and cabinet and the PM. There is now some political pressure for change, supported by not only the Liberal Democrats, but also pressure groups such as Charter 88 The UK is in a state of flux because of Brexit and uncertainty over Scotland.	Disadvantages An uncodified constitution can be easily updated and is more mobile. In the UK, there is no statute higher than any other and all can be changed with an act of parliament. An uncodified constitution reflects the views of wider society at the time - the UK's constitution has adapted through history. There is therefore no need to create a codified constitution when currently we have one that is adaptable enough anyway. Judicial decisions are incorporated into our constitution as they are made. This makes it responsive to social and political pressure. The government is powerful which means PMs can deliver their visions as they see them - think Thatcher and Blair (transformative). This means that the UK can change as circumstances change. It is already easy to hold government to account - through parliament and at election time. Codified means inflexibility. This entrenches out of date ideas - the rules in America mean that African-Americans took longer to get civil rights than they should have done. It can give judges too much power over law. They are unelected and unaccountable, so they should not be able to judge and strike down acts of parliament. The UKSC can only challenge government, not strike down laws. There is little pressure for change - most codified constitutions are created after social change and the UK does not have any reason to create one at the moment.
	Evaluation Overall, there are strong arguments for having a codified constitution, and arguments against having it. From the evidence, I would conclude that at this point in time, especially with current political events such as Brexit, there would be significant difficulty in crafting a constitution currently. Additionally, while there is the uprising in some political ranks in favour of codification, it is largely a non-salient issue for the British public, who are more likely to be concerned for the economy, Brexit and social welfare, than the higher tiers of law that seem abstract in comparison of such 'on the ground' issues.

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Advantages

A codified constitution is clear and accessibly to all citizens (political participation) - additionally provides clarity in political disputes
Public trust in politicians is at an all time low, and we experience elective dictatorship, despite being elected by a minority of the public. A codified constitution would limit government and end parliamentary sovereignty.
Create a further tier to the citizens and add safeguard to citizens rights as it is entrenched. Would stop governments changing the constitution except from with a super majority, eg. British Bill of Rights.
Senior judges would have more power to strike down laws and make binding decisions - this means the constitution is mobile.
Would protect the rights of citizens more securely - eg. the HRA not being parliamentary binding.
Most other democracies have codified constitutions.
Conventions are too significant in government - arguably they should not be this way as it enhances the powers of the executive.
Significant areas where we lack clarity, for example the powers of the monarch and cabinet and the PM.
There is now some political pressure for change, supported by not only the Liberal Democrats, but also pressure groups such as Charter 88
The UK is in a state of flux because of Brexit and uncertainty over Scotland.

Disadvantages

An uncodified constitution can be easily updated and is more mobile. In the UK, there is no statute higher than any other and all can be changed with an act of parliament.
An uncodified constitution reflects the views of wider society at the time - the UK's constitution has adapted through history. There is therefore no need to create a codified constitution when currently we have one that is adaptable enough anyway.
Judicial decisions are incorporated into our constitution as they are made. This makes it responsive to social and political pressure.
The government is powerful which means PMs can deliver their visions as they see them - think Thatcher and Blair (transformative). This means that the UK can change as circumstances change.
It is already easy to hold government to account - through parliament and at election time.
Codified means inflexibility. This entrenches out of date ideas - the rules in America mean that African-Americans took longer to get civil rights than they should have done.
It can give judges too much power over law. They are unelected and unaccountable, so they should not be able to judge and strike down acts of parliament. The UKSC can only challenge government, not strike down laws.
There is little pressure for change - most codified constitutions are created after social change and the UK does not have any reason to create one at the moment.

Evaluation

Overall, there are strong arguments for having a codified constitution, and arguments against having it. From the evidence, I would conclude that at this point in time, especially with current political events such as Brexit, there would be significant difficulty in crafting a constitution currently. Additionally, while there is the uprising in some political ranks in favour of codification, it is largely a non-salient issue for the British public, who are more likely to be concerned for the economy, Brexit and social welfare, than the higher tiers of law that seem abstract in comparison of such 'on the ground' issues.

Get Revising

Should the UK have a codified constitution?