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

What, If Anything, Would Be Achieved By The United Kingdom Adopting A Codified Constitution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What, If Anything, Would Be Achieved By The United Kingdom Adopting A Codified Constitution? Before discussing as to whether or not the United Kingdom would benefit from a codified constitution, it is necessary to define the necessary terms. The HL Constitution Committee defined a constitution as, "the set of laws, rules and practices that create the basic institutions of the state, and its component and related parks, and stipulate the powers of those institutions and the relationship between the different institutions and between those institutions and the individual."1 As we can infer from the above, a constitution simply refers to a body of rules, regulating the system of government within a state. In a much narrower concept, a constitution can amount to a written statement of a state's constitutional rules in a single document, much like the constitutions of India and the U.S.A. The United Kingdom is unlike these two nations mentioned, instead of having a codified constitution, that is to have a single document or series of documents that contain the entire constitutional principles, the U.K possesses an uncodified constitution, meaning there is no and has not been an attempt to create a legal binding document containing all the constitutional rules. ...read more.

Middle

However, as Sir Ivor Jennings states, "conventions are observed because of the political difficulties which arise if they are not"7. This indicates that even if the U.K adopts a codified constitution, nothing much would be achieved. Repercussions are ingrained to those in power and these uncodified constitutional conventions are subsequently followed, so attempting to formally set down these rules would do nothing more than cause unnecessary political debates and achieve nothing than what is already in place. Others have raised the point that by the U.K adopting a codified constitution, it would be a solid document full of clarity and coherence. However this may only be true to a certain extent. The question as to who would a codified constitution really benefit arises? If the U.K adopts a constitution which is the approximately the same length as the American Constitution, then yes it would prove beneficial to the citizens of the country, allowing them easy access to it, educating their minds and in effect be a, "People's Constitution"8, presumably easy to understand for the ordinary person. However, what about learned scholars, the lawyers for example, who wish to study the constitution in an in depth approach? ...read more.

Conclusion

Right now, there is no essential need for the United Kingdom to adopt a codified constitution; the U.K is fully working and efficient as it is, and as the saying goes, "if it isn't broken, you shouldn't fix it". Furthermore in a sense, the U.K retains it's individuality by adopting an efficient, uncodified constitution which has worked well for so many years and foreseeable future, will continue to work just as well. 1 HL Constitution Committee, First Report, 2002, Paragraph 20. 2 http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~wroblew/html/en_pr_konst.html 3 Lord Hailsham, The Dilemma of Democracy (London: Collins, 1978) pp.139-140. 4 Ryan, M. Unlocking Constitutional & Administrative Law (London: Hodder Arnold, 2007) p.14 5 Bradley AW, Ewing K D. Constitutional & Administrative Law (London: Pearson Education Ltd, 2007) p.39 6 Bogdanor V, Khaitan, T, Vogenauer, S. 'Should Britain Have A Written Constitution?' The Political Quarterly, vol 78, no 4 7 Bradley AW, Ewing K D. Constitutional & Administrative Law (London: Pearson Education Ltd, 2007) p.24 8 Bogdanor V, Khaitan, T, Vogenauer, S. 'Should Britain Have A Written Constitution?' The Political Quarterly, vol 78, no 4 9 Parpworth N. Constitutional & Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) p.96 10 Parpworth N. Constitutional & Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) p.98 ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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. What does it take to change the United Kingdoms constitution?

    Despite, Britain being one of the only states which lacks a written constitution, it has managed, the unwritten constitution works satisfactorily. Most other states that have produced a written constitution have had little choice at the time, due to either becoming decolonised or wanting to start over after a dictatorship or change in political stance.

  2. A Codified Constitution?

    On the other hand, some would argue that this means UK constitution is too flexible and hands too much power to the government. An obvious advantage of a written constitution is that they tend to be more coherent and more easily understood, as well as simpler to read.

  1. Unit 1 - Example of Evaluations

    Document Evaluation What is good about it and what worked well One important feature of my questionnaire that makes it good is its clear layout and presentation, the questions are clear and easy to understand and the answers are varied, the questionnaire incorporates closed and open questions.

  2. Constitution - Sources and Codified Debates

    Another source of the UK constitution is EU law. The UK joined the EU in 1973 and has adopted laws which relate to all its members such as the smoking ban and free movement. Legislation from the EU and judgements of the European court has all become a part of the UK constitution.

  1. Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

    no constitution?But the document itself merely sets out the rules determining the creation and operation of government institutions, and obviously Great Britain has such institutions and rules?. Therefore, this can be considered as UK is partially written but there are ?uncodified? in a single document.

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

    One argument is that a codified constitution would make the rules much clearer. Key constitutional rules and provisions are collected in a single legal document, in a codified constitution they would be more clearly defined than in a un-codified constitution where the rules are spread across several different documents.

  1. Should the UK have a codified constitution?

    In the case of electoral dictatorship, I believe that it isn?t as big a problem as the misinterpretation of the system could be. I don?t feel that it would work in reality either as if a party got too much power we would just vote them out at the next election.

  2. To what extent does Great Britain need a codified constitution?

    Another factor is that the judiciary would have to become more involved in resolving constitutional disputes. Many of these concern the power of government, so are political. Should judges be involved, given that they are neither elected nor responsible? Also a codified constitution or Bill of Rights would remove the sovereignty of Parliament, which is very important.

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