Some also argue that a codified constitution would be too rigid, as it would be insanely difficult to alter it, as is the case with the US’s constitution. This means the UK would be defined and ruled by the old, outdated views of the past, instead of where it is now.
Another reason the UK should keep its constitution uncodified is that if it were codified, the public would be exposed to judicial tyranny. This is because the judiciary branch of the government would be open to interpret the constitution however they wanted, which means that we would be giving an rather large amount of power to an unelected body. This would weaken the democratic system of the UK, as judges are unrepresentative, and therefore could harbor strong political views that the majority of the electorate disagree with, meaning that the judiciary would become an unjust institution.
However, a codified constitution would protect the rights of the country’s citizens. It would allow the general public to be shielded from the government, as it prevents an elective dictatorship. This is where the government has such a large majority in Parliament they are free to do whatever they want, and are only restrained by the need to win the next general election. With a codified constitution, this is prevented, as it would govern the government, limiting their actions. However, with a limited government, no big changes would be able to be made – in the current system, large changes can be made in a matter of days. With a codified constitution restricting the government that could become years. This links back to the uncodified constitution being flexible – one of the UK’s advantages is its governments have the power to turn the country around without fear of being prosecuted for it.
Problems arise if the UK was to have a codified constitution. Firstly, who would write it? There is no one who has a good enough knowledge of the UK’s political system to construct a constitution that doesn’t have a political prejudice. This would put a biased spin on the constitution, meaning that future governments would be forever trying to go through the process to change it
If an institution was created to write a constitution, then even more problems arise. Who would elect the members? If a plebiscite was held, then there is a chance that the people running to be in he committee would all share similar political views, making the future constitution opinionated towards that political standpoint.
Another issue is that Parliament cannot bind itself – it can only pass statute laws, which cannot bind future governments. Therefore, it would be technically and theoretically impossible to pass the new constitution.
However, it is considered that if the UK were to introduce a codified constitution, now would be an ideal time. This is for a few reasons. Firstly, given the recent Scottish Referendum, the constitution would be able to devolve more powers to not only Scotland, but also Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, a codified constitution would also be able to create an English Assembly, or a suitable alternative, as the so-called ‘English Question’ has been raised because of the referendum – that is, why shouldn’t England have a separate parliament, seeing as 85% of the UK resides here?
Another argument in keeping the constitution uncodified is quite simple: it works, so why should it be change? The UK has managed to prosper for centuries without a codified constitution, and there’s no reason it shouldn’t continue to survive in this political world for another century. We have no reason to change it, and there are other ways of governing the government that would be easier and more effective than a codified constitution. Checks and balances could be strengthened, and Parliament could be given more support in regulating what the government does, for instance.
I believe that a codified constitution is unnecessary. It cannot be justified – it would cause too much unrest for too little gain, and puts power in the unelected, increasing the democratic deficit. It is also one of the key, defining points of the UK. A codified constitution would not have as much character as the current one, and would be dry and full of legalese. It would also restrict the UK’s ability to react to global changes, and would keep us stuck in the past. In my eyes, the drawbacks of having a codified constitution outweigh the benefits.
by
barrowjacobgmailcom (student)
