• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should the UK have a written constitution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

03/05/07 Tim Gloster Should the UK have a written constitution? This question has been asked many times in the past few decades to many different governments. During the 18 years of Conservative rule up to 1997 changing the un-written constitution to a written one was hardly discussed, the Conservatives are not in favour of it at all. Conservative Prime Ministers like Margaret Thatcher took the view, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However since 1997, when Labour came to power, there have been several constitutional changes, such as devolution, and there are calls to have a written constitution from many in the Labour government. ...read more.

Middle

All citizens of the UK would know their rights, they would be in a simple, easy to understand and codified format, just like in the US, instead of a part-written constitution which can be very hard to interpret. It would end the odd system where the underlying theories, such as the separation of powers, do not match up with the current practice. However there are also arguments against changing our part-written for a written one. The first, and one of the most important arguments, is that the present system actually works well, as I quoted earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The present system is very flexible and it easy to make and repeal law, in contrast to the US where it is extremely difficult to get laws passed. ...read more.

Conclusion

The bill was written quickly and quickly signed by the Queen and turned into an act, all in the space of a week or so. In contrast other countries have a great deal of problems in changing their written constitution when need be. Overall I think the UK should stick with what we have at the moment, a part-written constitution. It offers a great deal of flexibility, it works and there would be very little agreement on how a new system would work and what would replace all the institutions that bear a royal title and who's rules and history revolve around the monarchy if it were abolished. Our current system also makes us unique in the world. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible ...

    4 star(s)

    This would not be seen as a step forward democratically for the UK. The arguments for a written constitution are that the government is too powerful. For example the Blair government has such a huge majority the executive is in effect ruling the country and not parliament.

  2. How well does the US Constitution Work

    with too much power in the national government, states would simply be boundary lines for the names of places. The states hold just enough power to keep the federal government from having absolute control. However the "trump card" so to speak would lie in the Checks and Balances inscribed into

  1. Discuss the arguments for and against a codified constitution

    As a result, for example, a number of asylum seeks have been detained without trial. Under a codified constitution they would be unable to introduce this legislation to restrict people's rights and the only way to do this is to amend the constitution which would be difficult and a lengthy process.

  2. Comparison of US and UK Constitution

    The UK constitution also exists in common law which has developed through tradition and custom over time; royal prerogative, which were powers originally exercised by the monarch; various conventions; authoritative works and political literature written by constitutionalists A V Dicey and Walter Bagehot, and more recently EU law.

  1. How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?

    The nature of the constitution can be easily identified as changing. The British constitution was historically revered as being flexible is becoming more rigid in the sphere of Europe. Europe is impinging upon Britain greater than ever. As Europe agrees upon more legislation, Britain's constitution is definitely becoming more of a written nature.

  2. "A written constitution, rather than gradual reform, is now essential for the UK to ...

    The need to define where power lies is a key point in the argument for the written constitution and, according to the Liberal Democrats, it is a fundamental requirement of a 'modern democracy'.

  1. Does the UK have a 'constitution'

    The continual use of the word "constituion" in the English parliament shows there is none and there is merely a government without a constitution. British writers define the constituiton in a way which appears to give us one, even though there is no documents to prove that there actually is

  2. Assess the impact of the Gulf War, September 11th and the was in Iraq ...

    There was no justification for their involvement. Having previously defeat the Soviet Union there was no oppostion to America and they were seen as the only 'Super Power'. With the concept of Seperation of Power being upheld in America, Internationally, this was not the case as there was no form

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work