One of the strongest features of an un-codified constitution is its adaptability and ease of amendment, allowing it to remain relevant to modern times, as governments will change over time as will society. Something that a codified constitution could not offer, even if the majority wanted a law to be removed, if it was entrenched within the constitution it would not be changed. An example of where our uncodified constitution has been able to adapt to modern times is the 2004 Fox hunting ban. Others include the reforms in the House of Lords in 1999, which have not made the constitution more democratic as Government cut the enrolled hereditary peers from around 600 to 100. The hereditary element is indefensible, and the appointment process is corrupted. In essences, this allows for a stronger government, who can effectively manage the country in a truly democratic way, under the instructions from the masses. Though, the lack of codification and need for special procedure make laws to easy to change. Another significan factor is the general public appectence of our un-codified constitution. Although some may argue that not everyone knows their specific rights due to the complexity of the constitution, people still seem to be content therefore there is little demand for major reform in the rights area of the argument. This follows the Conservative argument, ‘If it aint broke don’t fix it’.
This is a major disadvantage therefore of the UK’s unwritten constitution is that in the absence of any higher form of law it is virtually impossible to ensure that the rights of minorities in public life are protected against the power of the Parliament. The government has centralised power, where it gives out the power to smaller areas. Moreover, the absence of a written constitution means that there is no special procedure prescribed for legislation and constitutional importance. With no written constitution in practice the British constitution depends far less on legal rules and safeguards and relies much more upon political and democratic principles. Therefore with the supposed parliamentary sovereignty, the supreme power of the party in charge a democratic nation could very quickly turn itself into a dictatorship.
The problems that arise as result of unwritten constitution it is argued could be overcome by written document. The advantage would be that it would be written down providing easy access for citizens to see, such as the USA has where any one of the public can literally pick it out of a bookstore. However, it must be kept in mind where there are advantages of a written constitution the opposite is also true, for example difficulties to bring about changes as it would take a lot longer.
But there remain one question that needs an answer. Can the politician be trusted with the power? Would a written constitution guarantee smooth working of a system of government? This is doubtful because a written document on its own has no greater force than that of which a person in authority would be willing to attribute to it.
Ultimately the advantages and disadvantages need to be balanced against each other to answer the question should UK adopt a written constitution.
The present unwritten constitution was found partly on Acts of Parliament and judicial decisions, partly upon political practice such the aforementioned Judges decides the law, and partly upon detailed procedures established by the various parts of government for carrying their own tasks, provides a complex, government that has served the UK well. In particular, as all law in the UK, including laws relating to the constitution, may be enacted, repealed or amended by the Queen in Parliament using the same legislative procedure offer flexibility and adaptability to meet any situation that may arise. This ability to have gradual evolution is one of the major contributions to the political and social stability of the United Kingdom.
But the adoption of a written constitution is not necessarily to destroy this flexibility altogether. A written constitution cannot contain all the detailed rules that government depends and accordingly a written constitution usually evolves a wide variety of rules and understood practices, which meet the changing conditions. These rules and practices will usually be more easily changed than the constitution itself and their constant evolution will reduce the need for amendment of the written constitution, these laws are called statute laws. Though that is already happening in the UK, where the constitution is ever evolving to meet the needs of the citizens and, now, with the UK being part of European Union there is some limitation on Parliament's Sovereignty.
Therefore it may well be the case that a written constitution for the United Kingdom would preserve the best of the existing constitutional practices and would remove the major defects. But, in spite of the defects, so long as the present constitution is adhered too and no government abuses the system, the UK does not need to codify.
