The British Constitution comes from a variety of written sources; the main ones are the Magna Carter of 1215, Bill of Rights of 1689, Act of Settlement of 1700, European Constitutional Act, and the Human Rights Act of 1998. These are the legal sources of the UK constitution. These Acts outline the ordinary law of the land, but they are scattered about the statute books and are collected together as constitutional documents.
The presence of a written constitution for the UK, can allow for its citizens to be aware of the nature of the constitution. This would clarify any doubt in their mind as to the county’s decision on various matters. They would become aware of political issues, for example, the US citizens have access to the Bill of Rights, and they can purchase their own rights. This increases the voter turnout each year
A written constitution would allow the British people to appeal to the courts with a written document to back up their claims with a codified document as a point of reference. 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. In contrast, in the US, the legal rules relating to this issue would fall under the First Amendment to the Constitution; Roth v US (1957). The subject of pornography in the US may be classified as a clearly constitutional issue. Therefore here we see that without these sensitive issues, and others, placed in a written constitution, the citizens will be clueless as to the government’s decisions on them (Barnett 2006).
Some people believe that even though the unwritten constitution is supposed to be traditional, the running of the country at present does not coincide with the laws that were made hundreds of years ago, as they are simply out of date and not applicable to today’s society. A written document would not only modernize British law, but would also follow the majority of the countries in the world, who have working proof that written constitutions are beneficial and successful, like the United States.
Despite the large number of advantages for a written constitution to be incorporated into Britain, there are also many arguments against an entrenched document. The present constitution may contain many sources, but there is no denying that the constitution does work; the United Kingdom has a successful judicial system and a democratic Parliament, and even though it may run in a different way than a country with a written constitution such as America, is certainly isn’t less prosperous and flourishing than the US.
Also, even though the introduction of a written constitution is possible, it would be extremely time consuming to produce and costly, especially to the British tax payers. The written document would be constructed from the present unwritten constitution, therefore it basically would contain the statute laws, conventions and common law that they already have, but written down and restrained from modification.
An unwritten constitution can make way for politicians to abuse their power, by making, or changing laws to their liking rather than for the well being of the citizens. Arbitrary change to the legal system of a country is very easy. 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”.
