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

"The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages" Discuss (40)

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Politics: ?The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages? Discuss (40) The fact that the issue of the UK?s need for a codified constitution has managed to remain relevant despite centuries of prolonged deliberation, is not only testament to its importance as an issue but equally so to it?s significance and how it could potentially affect the UK as a whole. A codified constitution is a constitution made up of a set of laws that an individual or set of people have made and agreed upon for governmental use and is most importantly documented in a single place. In theory, the documentation of a codified constitution appears to make minimal difference to the executive and judiciary system, however, in common practice the advantages of a codified constitution in present day UK in regards to the executive, judiciary and society as a whole do not outweigh the disadvantages. This is due the fact that many of the issues which point toward the advantages of a codified constitution, such as modernization, rights and adaptability also reveal distinct social and political disadvantages to the incorporation of a codified constitution; ultimately the use of other tenuous links fail to alter the fact that the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages at the present moment in time. ...read more.


Although, with multiculturalism so prominent within the UK it is difficult to imagine enhanced patriotism being of significant importance. What must be said though is that in anyone?s mind the preservation of the rights of citizens is a firmly reassuring idea. Furthermore, It could be argued that the Human Rights Act does not go far enough as by preserving parliamentary sovereignty and making parliamentary legislation an exception to it?s jurisdiction, the act fails to deal with the fundamental issue in the British constitution; that is, the enormous power of central government and its complete control over parliament. This, in the eyes of cynics at least, feeds into the argument of codification as had the Human Rights Act been binding on parliamentary legislation, it may have represented a major check on governmental power. However, what must be said is that however weak cynics may sight the Human Rights Act and view codification as some form of panacea, there are a few cases of practical evidence to show otherwise with the anti-terrorism legislation of 2004 a primary example which contradicts claims that the Act is weak, this, despite the fact that the issue of Human rights in relation to the creation of a codified constitution and its advantages does on the whole seem a credible one. ...read more.


This is highlighted in terms of entrenchment, which aligns society with concepts which in truth are redundant but are upheld purely because of entrenchment, bringing to light the fact that in the short-term modernising the UK in the form of a single document is not worth having it lost in archaic doldrums that will almost certainly hinder society in the long-term. The issue of short-term and long-term is similarly mirrored in regards to the transitional period bound to ensue once codification takes place. This ultimately begs the question as to whether or not the many of the tenuous advantages of codification really supplement the political imbalance and dysfunction that will likely ensue in the short-term especially in an era in which the public?s sense of patience justifiably wears thinner and thinner. As well as this, the inception of devolution and Blair?s Labour Parties other constitutional reforms post 1997 are representative of the flexibility of the current constitutional format, and as of now have made the need for codification ultimately superfluous, as opposed to pre 1997, as in reality the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages, and in truth; never will. ...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 Kingdom 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 Kingdom essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Explain the arguments for and against introducing a codified constitution

    3 star(s)

    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,

  2. Marked by a teacher

    How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens?

    3 star(s)

    a way that upset the barons hence the creation of the Magna Carta in 1215. The legislative is the main decision making body in the UK and consists of ; elected MPs, one from each constituency, or appointed lords. The executive are the governing body of the fusion of powers.

  1. Asses the arguments in favour of and against codification of the British Constitution ...

    as the UK has a stable political system already and so there is no need to change it.

  2. A Codified Constitution?

    Many people believe that a written constitution would assist citizens in clarifying their rights and responsibilities, therefore enabling them to protect themselves against the state and others. Yet, the time and effort spent considering what to include and leave out into the written constitution would make it a logistical nightmare and a complete waste of government staffing and money.

  1. What does it take to change the United Kingdoms constitution?

    Sometimes, the intention of the members of Parliament that wrote the statutes are out of date or may not lead to a just result with the facts of a certain case, by leaving the judge 'wiggle-room' it produces a fairer result.

  2. The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages. Discuss [40 marks]

    One of the primary issues in regards to whether the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages is its sense of a lack of social mobility and a failure to adapt. In effect, a codified constitution would prohibit the extent in which the Legislature can maneuver, which as previously stated undermines it?s power of legitimacy.

  1. Assess whether or not the United Kingdom should adopt a codified constitution?

    A codified constitution would theoretically end parliamentary sovereignty and elective dictatorship. Elective dictatorship is a constitutional imbalance in which the executive power is checked only by the needs of governments to win elections. In the United Kingdom it is reflected by the ability of the government to act in any way and pass any laws it wants.

  2. Define Direct Democracy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of referendums?

    It is less likely to hear an MP claim they dislike referendums, because it is a highly unpopular opinion among voters. However, political analyst, Oussama Cherribe, claims that referendums could be our 'downfall'. It is important to remember that the Dutch coalition government recently collapsed when one party tried and

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