The closest thing the UK has to a bill of rights today is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) into domestic law. The key features within the unwritten constitution would be described as being uncodified, not ingrained therefore flexible and unitary (excluding recent devolution)
With that said, the UK, despite not possessing a formal written constitution, has a series of notable constitutional documents. The entry of the UK into the European Union in 1973 caused a major constitutional development, bringing Britain under the supra-national jurisdiction of the EU. Thus parliament may have in practice limited its own sovereignty, the Factortame case of 1990 illustrates this. The case involving the denial of UK fishing rights claims illustrated the erosion of the UK's unfettered sovereignty. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 provided individuals with the ability to bring claims in domestic courts based on these prescribed human rights. The Act is of major constitutional significance because it strengthens the ability of ordinary people to challenge the actions of the various institutions of government.
The Rule of Law is an aspect of the that has been emphasised by Dicey and it, therefore, can be considered an important part of . It involves, the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities. There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law. Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law. The critical feature to the Rule of Law is that individual liberties depend on it. Its success depends on the role of trial by jury and the impartiality of judges. It also depends on Prerogative Orders.
Supporters of a written and clearly defined constitution believe that as society has had its liberties more and more encroached on by central government, the Rule of Law is more important now than ever. They claim that central government has sought and seeks to undermine the three basic tenets of Dicey’s code with an increase in things such as: the activities of the Secret Service (especially after September 11th)
Controversies
The term unwritten constitution refers to a constitution where none of the sources of constitution are written down, which would obviously be very difficult to interpret.
It would be argued by many people that the UK needs a written constitution in order to provide greater accountability and democracy. It has been argued that Parliament could be seen to be unrestrained; as it can potentially make or unmake any law it wishes, plus a large parliamentary majority means the domination of the legislature by the executive, thus creating an "elective dictatorship". If a constitution were to be written there would be less constitutional crises as there would be no confusion to what is classified as 'unconstitutional behaviour, and the basic rights of citizens would be identified and guaranteed. Without any Bill of Rights, it is Parliament's duty to preserve liberties. However these can be removed at any time by Parliament (e.g. Internment, the Prevention of Terrorism Act)
The main arguments against a written and codified constitution:
It maybe said that the unwritten form of the UK’s constitution has served well over time and therefore why would it need to change to a written form. It has changed and evolved and still continues to do so. Judicial issues may arise within a written constitution, as it has to be relatively vague to allow it to evolve as society evolves. This would mean that the state would be constantly open to judicial interpretation. This would become a problem for a number of reasons: Judges are unrepresentative of the public; as such they are unlikely to represent minority groups or activists. Judges are unaccountable and do not have to answer to Parliament or the public and since they are not elected is would not be reasonable that they would be able to overrule an elected Parliament. As such, the core controversy around the notion of a written constitution has been its potential to act as a brake on the democratic supremacy of Parliament. Some believe that the notion of an unelected judicial branch questioning the sovereignty of Parliament is fundamentally opposed to the notion of representative democracy. This alone would suggest that the current system provides strong and effective government with accountability and supreme authority.
