Fearful of the flexibility of the current constitution, some would also argue that there is not enough special procedures to amend it consequently making it too easy to change. For example, there have been a significant amount of changes between UK and EU relations without the holding of any referendums. The government only recently ignored the public demand for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and with the help of codification the constitution would gain special status. This increases the difficulty for a government to make major changes.
Recently, since the Human Rights Act, people have become more interested and concerned over their rights and the accessibility of their rights. In the US, it is possible to buy a copy of their constitution, including their rights, in almost any bookshop. However, as Britain has no codified constitution people are far less aware of their rights. A codified constitution would strengthen rights protection. Some believe the Human Rights Act, though a step forward, still lacks in entrenchment and not adequately protected. They also feel it isn’t correct that governments elected by just a fifth of the electorate can alter rights so freely, and only heightens our need for codification. Following the hurried Anti Terrorism Acts, peoples basic human rights were questioned and without a document as entrenched as a codified constitution, it was a lot more difficult to debate than was necessary.
With an entrenched constitution, like in the US, our rights would be more accessible. At present, where it is unwritten, it isn’t known so people are reliant on the government to remain playing by unwritten rules. If we were to become more aware of our rights, we would be more likely to claim them, too. Some feel it would be safer and more democratic for a definitive on constitutional arrangements and procedures and law to be limited. Therefore, it seems there is a demand for our constitution to become codified in order to protect our rights and strengthen the constitution in case of constitutional crisis.
However, it is argued that these demands for a codified constitution come from academics rather than the people, without real need. Britain has not undergone a constitutional crisis of any sort like Germany and Japan after the Second World War, and the only time there would be a need for a written document would be if Scotland became independent. At present, the people seem broadly satisfied that the nature of government is legitimate and creating a codified constitution could easily widen divisions instead of healing them. This belief is based on the idea that people would rather have their politicians deal with improving schools or hospitals, remedying unemployment and other issues.
If a codified constitution was seriously taken into account, the debate over what was included could take years. Our political classes are unable to agree on how it should be funded to begin with, before considering other major promises of reformation in other areas that are yet to be completed. Parliament delayed difficult decisions over the House of Lords for a century before the first reformation of the second chamber in addition to the decade since the ejection of hereditary peers. The easiest way to find out whether the people wanted a codified constitution would be to hold a referendum, though it is unlikely to motivate large numbers of the electorate. As political knowledge or interest has decreased over recent political scandals such as the expenses, people have lost their faith in politics and a low turn out would simply undermine the whole process.
If one takes into consideration how much the UK constitution has been modified in only the past 50 years, especially since New Labour took power in ’97, it is clear that with a codified constitution these modifications would have taken more time or may not have even been possible. With an entrenched written document, it can become irrelevant and outdated such as the USA’s second amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms or Iceland’s clause that states their president must live in or near Reykjavik. An outdated constitution can be a great hindrance, and therefore it is much more sensible to consider other matters such as the financing of devolved countries or what issues should be put to a national referendum before we consider a codified constitution.
Taking everything into consideration, I refer back to the proposal of introducing a British Bill of Rights. This can create a common bond, a unifying force, unlike a codified constitution which would only create greater divisions. Building on the Human Rights Act, a Bill of Rights gives further effect to principles like the Magna Carta which is still relevant to modern situations where social mobility and diversity is increasing. Those concerned with the lack of knowledge over rights would be at rest as a Bill of Rights also ensures individuals are given a clearer idea of what to expect from public authorities and each other. This increases citizenship and gives room for educational improvement as well covering economic and social rights which are not recognised under the Human Rights Act. Linking peoples rights and responsibilities and highlighting the differences, a Bill of Rights ensures a flexible and adaptable constitution remains and can often be seen as “Human Rights Act plus”. Therefore it does not create unnecessary debate over a codified constitution and its funding issues nor does it conceal people’s rights.
