• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discuss the case for and against a Written Constitution for the UK.

Extracts from this document...


Discuss the case for and against a 'Written Constitution' for the UK. A Constitution, according to Professor KC Wheare is "the whole system of government of a country, a collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government" (1966). In lay terms, it is a set of rules governing a country. There are various types of constitutions; however the written and unwritten constitutions will be critically examined. A written constitution is one contained within a single document or a series of documents, whereas an unwritten/uncodified constitution is not set out in one particular/said document (Barnett 2006). The United Kingdom is said to have an unwritten constitution, but is best described as wholly uncodified (Budge et al, 1998). Their laws are accessible from law reports and statutes. The US is a prime example of having a written constitution. In subsequent paragraphs a critical examination of the pros and cons of a written constitution to be adopted by the United Kingdom will be examined thoroughly. The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution which is a product of the history of the country. It has not been thought necessary to frame a single document which would deal with matters relating to the constitution. ...read more.


Also the public will be able to read and comprehend the constitution considerably better than they do at present. A written constitution could be taught in schools and this would not only increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws included in the constitution. An entrenched codified constitution would also be an advantage to the British Judicial system, as laws would be clearly defined so judges would be able to recognize when laws are broken, and make fairer decisions. In the United Kingdom, it is difficult, in the absence of a written constitution, for the citizens to differentiate, at a conceptual level, precisely what is, and what is not a 'constitutional issue'. Therefore to illustrate this difficulty of differentiation of sensitive issues the student will show how one is unable to identify the view point of the government. In the case of abortion, by contrast, the United States has the Abortion Act 1967, whereas the United Kingdom does not have an Act or Law stating its decision on this sensitive issue. Also by way of illustration, in the UK, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, an ordinary Act of Parliament, having no particular constitutional status, provides the legal rules relating to pornographic literature. ...read more.


The door is wide open for dictatorial regimes. For example Blair's reform of the House of Lords can be noted here, whereby his party had a majority in the House of Commons and he was able to completely change half of the legislature without a referendum or other means by checking consensus. A written constitution would act as a safeguard, as it would make it difficult to change. The unwritten constitution allows for change overtime, so that the government can take into consideration or account the changing times and needs of the democratic system. It allows itself to be shaped by the needs of the people, adapting as required by circumstances. In essence there are no aspects of the British constitution that cannot be altered; according to Dicey, "one under which every law of every description can be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body."In comparison, the United States constitution is very hard to modify. It is very rigid, and according to Dicey, it is "one under which certain laws generally known as constitutional or fundamental laws cannot be changed in the same manner as ordinary laws". As the evidence gives copious support to the argument, it is concluded that the UK has survived without a written constitution up until now. "If it's not broken, don't fix it". ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens?

    3 star(s)

    An elitist party is a party whose ordinary members have less of a say in decision making, this is infringing on that person's right to freedom of expression as dictated by the civil rights. An elitist party also has an under-representation of women and ethnic minorities which infringes on the human right of protection from discrimination.

  2. "There is no case for a written constitution in Britain." Discuss

    current constitutional system, 'The lack of a codified constitution is not the problem, accursed democracy is the problem.' This bares some truth, as it is arguable that each system bares so many negative externalities as the executive is always seeking to exploit any gaps or inconsistencies in a system.

  1. There is no convincing case for a written constitution in Britain. Discuss

    From the two definitions above it is easy to see that the two conflicting methods of Governmental foundation provide fuel to a fiery debate in which each system is embellished and debased on a variety of discerning factors. A source from scribd.com claims on the subject of Britain and its

  2. Free essay

    U.K Constitution

    In the Tory Party's 1997 manifesto such devolution plans for Scotland and Wales are still strongly opposed. Plans to resist moves to a European federal state, to safeguard national interests by staying out of the single European currency and to adopt a wait-and-see approach are also expressed.

  1. What does it take to change the United Kingdoms constitution?

    UK does not have these problems, our constitution has produced a stable government, and a transparent democracy that provides social welfare and respects human rights. Written constitutions reflect the beliefs and political aspirations of those that wrote it, it may not be particularly reflective of the beliefs of the community, unless it is voted for in a democratic way.

  2. How Democratic is the New Russian Constitution?

    Considering the parliament is democratically elected in Russia and government ministers are not, these powers are limiting in terms of how much they allow the democratically elected to scrutinise the unelected government. The fact that members of the federal council and state duma are elected suggests a much greater scope

  1. Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

    Since the constitution is unwritten, Britain?s parliament is sovereign as it can choose to pass whichever law it feels is suitable. Compared to the other nations, there are very few legal limitations, which can be referred in the case of Jackson 2005 and War Damage Act 1965 (Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate)

  2. Discuss the case for and against a written constitution for the UK

    There is a clear indication of separation of powers between the three state organs, which helps lead the government towards accountability. However, there is no clear indication as to the separation of powers in an unwritten constitution like in the UK and it undermines access to a clear definition.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work