A written constitution in Britain?

There are many advantages of adopting a written constitution in Britain, and there are many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary people who believe that Britain should have one. Our unwritten constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement about what it actually contains as it is made up of various conventions, statute laws and ancient documents. Constitutions are supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are maintained, and so a British written constitution would not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of the executive, but prevent the power of the Government from being too centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the Government. Even when she was Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher agreed that the Government power was too centralised, and needed some sort of restraint. A written constitution would set out the relationship between individuals and the Government; it would define the power of the state and its agencies, and say who can do what and where are the limits of power. Recently, the Government has been accused of decreasing its accountability through various agencies and quangos by allowing them to carry out Government policies without the agency directors being held accountable for their mistakes; a written constitution could prevent this and make Parliament and democracy more accountable to themselves and the public.

Parliamentary sovereignty is slowly diminishing in Britain, and a written constitution would not only decrease Government sovereignty but also increase sovereignty of the electorate and the judicial system. Presently, if the Government want to modify or add to the unwritten constitution, they can do it simply by passing an Act; this may suggest that we have an elective dictatorship in theory where the Government exercises a predominant influence over Britain. An inflexible, rigid written constitution would evolve more power into the people and the courts and disperse the sovereign powers of decision making and patronage of the Executive. This would be especially beneficial with Europe in mind; Britain is the only member in the EU without a written constitution, and a written constitution may increase our sovereignty within Europe.

With an unwritten constitution, our 'constitutional insurance' is weak and fragile, especially in parts of our constitution such as conventions. These are un-codified laws that in reality could easily be eroded by a future radical leader; a written constitution would replace conventions and consensus with contract and law, which would increase our 'insurance'.

A written constitution would allow the British people to appeal to the courts with a written document to back up their claims; a codified document is a point of reference and the public will be able to read and understand our constitution a considerable amount more than they do presently. A written constitution could be taught in schools; this would not only increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws included in the constitution. A recent survey conducted by pressure group Charter 88 suggested that 70% of people are in favour of a written constitution, which is an advantage in itself as it would have the British people's consent. An entrenched codified constitution would also be an advantage to the British Judicial system as laws would be clearly defined so judges would be able to recognise when laws are broken, and make fairer decisions.

Some people believe that even though our unwritten constitution is supposed to be traditional; running the country and following laws that were made hundreds of years ago such as the 1215 Magna Carta is simply out of date and old fashioned. A written document would not only modernise British law, but keep in following with the majority of the countries in the world, who have working proof that written constitutions are beneficial and successful.

Altogether, a written constitution would bring many economical, social and political benefits, and be a worthwhile move for the future of Britain. It would not only protect against arbitrary government but would work in unison with the Human Rights Act to protect citizen's rights.

Despite the large number of advantages for a written constitution to be incorporated into Britain, there are also many arguments against an entrenched document. Our present constitution may contain many sources, but there is no denying that our constitution does work; Britain has a successful judicial system and a democratic Parliament, and even though it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Also, even though the introduction of a written constitution is possible, it would be extremely time consuming to produce and costly, especially to the British tax payers. The written document would be constructed from our present unwritten constitution, therefore it basically would contain the statute laws, conventions and common law that we already have, but written down and restrained from modification.

One of the main reasons that suggested that the UK should have a written constitution was to protect citizen's rights, but now the 2000 Human Rights Act has been passed surely there is no benefit of introducing one.

There are historical reasons why we have no written constitution; Britain has not been conquered since 1066 and so all blue prints for a written constitution were discarded long ago; and despite the two World Wars, Britain has been stable and has had a responsible government for hundreds of years. Our unwritten constitution is traditional, and if a written one is incorporated into British law, then people who believe the monarchy and the democratic system is old fashioned will demand abolishment or amendment. There are many problems that would pose threat to the country if a written constitution were introduced.

Most people in Britain don't even know what the constitution is, and if a written constitution was to be brought about with extra taxes to pay for referendums and implementation of the document many people will oppose it. Generally, the British people are opposed to radical change, and many people have shown outrage over devolution, the abolition of hereditary peers, the Human Rights Act and many more issues; there could not be anything much more radical than introducing a written constitution into Britain.

Probably the main argument which would prevent a written constitution from being introduced into Britain is the fact that it is simply unachievable; it would not only be difficult to gain a consensus about who should decide and what the constitution should exactly contain, but also under our existing unwritten constitution there is no body that can authorise and legitimise the introduction of a written constitution. Parliament would first have to pass many bills to declare that statute laws and Acts are no longer valid, which would be immensely time consuming, and that is after a referendum has taken place to make sure the citizens all want a written constitution. The Conservative Party have traditionally been in favour of keeping our unwritten constitution, and so when the vote takes place within the House of Commons and debates take place in the Tory-majority House of Lords, the outcome would probably have a strong following against a written constitution. William Hague once said 'that there was no need for a written constitution as we already have internal stability and democratic accountability, and Britain has been well served by its unwritten constitution'.

A written constitution would be undesirable in Britain, as the power of the courts would increase dramatically. Any disputes that occurred over relationships between the structure and powers of the government, citizens and government, and different parts of the government, would all have to be settled by the judiciary. Power and sovereignty then would travel from the elected executive to the un-elected judiciary and judges would be able to make political decisions such as make laws and declare actions unconstitutional, which is undemocratic and unjust. Even if the courts were elected by the people to increase democracy, then the judicial system would change into a Parliament, diminishing the importance and need for the original bi-cameral system.

The final disadvantage of introducing a written constitution into Britain is that the supposed inflexible and rigid nature of written constitutions of other countries is often open to amendments when laws are out dated. Unless our constitution declared that the constitution could not be amended similar to in Italy, there is danger that laws may need to be changed and it would not be possible. If we adopted a written constitution and amended it whenever necessary, there would hardly be any difference to the present constitutional system.

Overall, there are also a great number of arguments against a written constitution, which would pose the country a lot of problems if Parliament decided to introduce one. A valid point is that there may not be many negative consequences of introducing a written constitution, but as the present one works efficiently, there simply be no necessity for one.

In my opinion I believe that the UK should not necessarily adopt a written constitution, but somehow decrease centralised power in Britain and separate it so local authorities and the opposition parties have more power to prevent bills from turning into Acts so easily. At present Britain's unwritten constitution can be modified and added to reasonably easily, and the Lords can only delay a bill for up to a year; so there needs to be some sort of restraint introduced to prevent possible dictators from passing Hitler's 'Enabling Act' type bills in the future.

Although the cost and time impediments of introducing a written constitution would prove to be exorbitant, the Institute for Public Policy Research has already produced a draft constitution which has been approved by many political figureheads, therefore overruling the problem of deciding who would write the constitution. However, there may be discontent if the IPPR are endowed with the right to produce such a document, as it is an unelected body.

A written constitution would be safer for long term peace as individual's and Parliament's rights would be codified to prevent possible rebellions and outbreaks; however a written document may be hard to adapt to as it would be such a radical contrast between the UK without and with a written constitution, and the public may not consent to it.

Despite the fact that a written constitution would have the force of basic law that would be harder to amend or appeal and this may seem like a fundamental advantage, it is probably similar to statute law that exists today. This is another point to back up my view that there may no need to introduce a written constitution.

Also, even though a written constitution would curb the exercise of the supreme power of the state, restraint of the bill passing process already exists in the form of needing a majority in the Commons, extreme scrutiny in the Lords and Royal Assent from the Queen to pass a bill, so radical bills are very hard to pass.

The House of Lords has lost power over the years, especially with the New Labour government eradicating hereditary peers, so a written constitution may be able to regain some of the lost power. This may especially please the Conservatives, although the Lords have seemed to become old fashioned and if Labour introduced a codified constitution, they probably wouldn't increase the Lord's power within the constitution. Also, if the power of the unelected Lords increased with the help of a written constitution, this may be a negative thing as they are supposed to be a collection of people that provide scrutiny of bills and the Commons, not a group that pass bills and run the country.

If Britain had a written constitution like America there then may be the dilemma of whether to continue to follow the steps of our US counterparts and introduce a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution; this may then pose problems of whether or not it should be elected and democratic, or unelected and open to sleaze, bias and corruption.

Many people believe that a written constitution would replace A V Dicey's checks and balances on the constitution since they have diminished, but no seriously bad things have happened since they seemed to have whittled away, maybe suggesting that we already have a working responsible government that doesn't need to be restrained by an entrenched constitution.

Arguably, a written constitution would serve the politicians and governments whose existence would be codified in a written social compact, compelling obedience to a constitutionally ordained power structure, but this may not be worth having. Our country is supposed to be a liberal democracy where 'the people are governed by the people for the people' and so it may not be a good idea to entrench the powers of those who have complete power and authority over those who don't.

I don't believe an extensive written constitution is necessary in the UK; what is important is that a cohesive society needs at least one solid basis of agreement, and if this comes in the form of an unwritten or a written constitution, it really wouldn't matter. But seeing as our country is presently perfectly stable, it would be hard to introduce a written constitution. If a written constitution was introduced easily and cheaply, then all the benefits of a written constitution would be able to be enjoyed by the country. Despite this, it is unarguable that it would be hard to decide what to include in a written constitution, so the public would have to be consulted in a referendum; but then there is the chance that the majority of the public don't feel the need for a written constitution in Britain.

Written and unwritten constitutions

Constitutions may be ‘written’ or ‘unwritten’, and unlike the

majority of states, the British constitution is largely unwritten and

uncodified. Allied to their written or unwritten character,

constitutions may also be classified as rigid or flexible. A rigid

constitution is one in which amendment is very difficult,

requiring special procedures to be employed before any changes

can be made. By contrast, the British constitution is essentially

flexible. Parliament – the supreme law-making body within the

United Kingdom – may theoretically alter the constitution at will,

although in practical terms this can only be done with the support

of the people. Where constitutions were devised by their founders

as a complete statement of arrangements for the future, it will

generally be difficult to amend them. For example, in the USA, the

constitution of 1787 requires that for any amendment, the proposal

must have been made by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses

of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) and also

approved by a three-quarters majority of all the State legislatures.

For this reason it is particularly difficult to amend a written

constitution: it is ‘rigid’, rather than ‘flexible’ in nature.

The unwritten nature of the British

constitution

Only three countries today have constitutions which are not

entirely written – Britain, Israel and New Zealand.

Britain’s largely unwritten constitution is the product of history.

Most countries have experienced an event which marked a clear

break with history and provided the opportunity to codify their

constitutional arrangements. Britain is exceptional in this respect,

and the constitution is the result of gradual evolution rather than

any conscious effort to design a complete system of constitution

and government. The British constitution – while by no means

totally unwritten (see Chapter 3 on ‘sources’) – has never been

defined through a basic constitutional document. Nevertheless, it is

clear that Britain has a constitution which identifies rules and

procedures relating to the principal institutions of the state. There

are numerous rules which we can identify as ‘constitutional’,

although there are areas of law about whose status we may be

uncertain. It is a first principle of the constitution that Parliament is

supreme in its law-making power, and that accordingly there can

be no limit as to the matters on which Parliament may legislate. We

can also be clear that Acts of Parliament which:

˜ define the membership of Parliament (for example the House of

Commons (Disqualification) Act 1975)

˜ provide for national representative assemblies (see the

Northern Ireland Act 1998, Scotland Act 1998, Government of

Wales Act 1998)

˜ enable the reception of European Community law into

domestic law (see the European Communities Act 1972)

˜ protect civil and political rights (e.g. the HRA 1998)

are constitutional statutes. In theory, however, none of these has a formal constitutional status: they can be amended at Parliament’s will without any special procedure. In 1885, A.V. Dicey described a flexible constitution as:

‘one under which every law of every description can legally be

changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the

same body’ (Dicey, 1885).

In practice, as opposed to legal theory, it would be difficult for Parliament to amend or repeal such statutes without the clear consent of the people. Beyond the core of statutes which we commonly regard as constitutional, there are areas of doubt. For example, we may commonly regard the right of a worker to withdraw his or her labour as a basic constitutional right: but does this mean that statutes which regulate employment matters are constitutional in nature?

Unwritten Constitution

The United Kingdom does not have a for-mal

constitution written down in a single

document. Rather its constitution has

evolved over 1000 years.

It consists of a body of statutory law

(such as Magna Carta), customs, and ju-dicial

interpretations. For instance there

is no written law that states that the government should consist

of a cabinet, or who should be in it. This form of the executive of

government has evolved slowly since the 15th century when its

original purpose was to advise the monarch. This most impor-tant

of aspects of government is simply a matter of custom. The

advantage of this form of government is that it can be eas-ily

changed by a simple act of Parliament , or by modifying

a custom, or by a judge reinterpreting a law. As examples

new laws have been passed creating a Welsh Assembly, a

Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Ireland Assembly as simple

acts of Parliament. Prime Minister Blair has changed the custom

of being present in the Commons to answer questions person-ally

from twice a week to once a week.

This means that the British constitution has been

easily able to cope with governing England or the

United Kingdom or the British Empire, and can eas-ily

evolve to match the needs of the future.

A written constitution in Britain?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Does Britain need a written constitution?

Should Britain Have A Written constitution?

Does Britain need a written constitution?

Examine the case for adapting a written constitution in Britain.