The main argument of getting a written constitution is that an unwritten constitution means more manoeuvrability when it comes to law changing and instigating constitutional changes such as reform. On the other hand, some would argue that this means UK constitution is too flexible and hands too much power to the government.
An obvious advantage of a written constitution is that they tend to be more coherent and more easily understood, as well as simpler to read. This is easier for citizens to understand as well as people in power, as there may be fewer loopholes and it will be easier to draw conclusions on future laws and policies.
It is said that the most successful democracies base their institutions on a written constitution, so surely it would be a good idea to join them. However, the reason our constitution has not changed over the centuries, as many other counties constitutions have (e.g. America, Germany, etc), is that the UK has been so stable and worked well over these years of change. The governing leaders of many nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to alter their constitution to a written one in response to popular revolt or war. It seems that existing arrangements have worked well in practice in the UK and has served Britain well for centuries. Because of this, many people have felt the system should not be tampered with and modified.
Many people believe that a written constitution would assist citizens in clarifying their rights and responsibilities, therefore enabling them to protect themselves against the state and others. Yet, the time and effort spent considering what to include and leave out into the written constitution would make it a logistical nightmare and a complete waste of government staffing and money.
It has been claimed that those in power do not wish for a written constitution purely because they do not desire to put a halt to the unbridled power of the executive and its ministers. Because of this idea, many believe the unwritten constitution, while claiming to aid citizens, is actually a conspiracy against the British public where the government do not wish to give up their power.
Nevertheless, with the executive positioned in parliament, anything that limits the power of the government undermines the traditional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. A written constitution would contradict the law that no future government can be bound permanently by the actions of a former government. Moreover, the separation of powers means that government cannot have too much power as the executive, legislature and judiciary do not allow one part to have too high a concentration of power. The judiciary watches over the separation of powers, thus halting an undue concentration of power in one of the three forms of power.
Yet, although this stops the executive having too much power, it could be said that this gives the judiciary too much power, therefore proving a written constitution is needed.
A written constitution could elucidate the respective powers of government and Parliament. Hence, boosting the ability of government to hold ministers accountable and increasing power of Parliament to scrutinise said ministers on behalf of UK citizens.
In conclusion, although a written constitution would make things simpler to understand, an unwritten conclusion means it is easier to amend laws and policies in addition to the constitution itself and even though an unwritten constitution can prove too much power in one place, our constitution has never failed us so why would it be in need of repair?