Discuss the view that there is nothing to be gained in writing a constitution down

However some argue that because there is no written constitution it is difficult to control the executive, who have enjoyed a much larger monopoly of power since parliament has become more powerful. New Labour have set out to reform certain constitutional matters, but it is complicated to address a problem that is a lengthy and simply not interesting to the public. It would also be difficult for England to produce a properly codified constitution unless the whole structure of the executive and parliament were reformed and this is a difficult, unpopular and risky procedure. This implies that the parliament and more particularly the ruling party in parliament have more power, due to an unbalanced system. A way to counteract this problem, some say, is by introducing a codified constitution to protect the power of the judiciary and clearly outline the executive’s power. This would be a large step to take for Britain because it has been the same system for many hundreds of years, however just because the British system might suite an uncodified system better simply because it has had time to evolve and entrench itself into our lives and laws. It is plausible to assume the same applies for the USA, changing their system would be disastrous because of how accustomed the population have become to it. So a new state such as the EU has produced a codified constitution, this is apparent because the EU is a federal system and it is much easier to implement a written constitution because an effective uncodified constitution is only affective after years of evolution and adjustments.

Obviously the same codified constitutions can be interpreted differently by other people, but at least the judiciary in places like the US can have guidelines to help them reaches decisions. There is also no debating the Supreme Courts ruling because the constitution in theory ensures that everyone has the same rules and practises.

So it is clear that there are obvious differences in having either a codified or uncodified constitution and both have their advantages. A federal system, such as the US  works with a written constitution and even though it may be difficult to alter; it provides clear checks an balances, allowing all three branches of government to enjoy their own clear protected power. However states such as the UK have a different system simply because of our different political history and even though there is not a single document outlining a clear constitution there are many acts, judicial decisions and more recently the Human Rights Act that are still there to protect our rights and provide checks. However, the main problem with not writing anything down is that the can be an unfair balance of power leaning towards the executive and this could potentially lead to much larger problems.