Actual uncodified constitution has many arguments which stand against the codified one. UK uncodified constitution has some specific features which are important to mention and all of these features give the constitution immutable form which is unique from others.
One of the most discussed aspect is why to change something that is not broken? Why to change the constitution which has developed well over the centuries? Britain has survived very well until now with an uncodiefied constitution. Britain has a long and continuous national history and the origin of constitutional is dated back to the Saxon kings who ruled England before the Norman Conquest of 1066. There has been a long tradition of strong central rule dating back to the Tudors, and since the upheavals of the 17th century, constitutional development has been largely peaceful and evolutionary. The constitution has developed up to the present form and its believed, that when there will be a need to change it in the future, it can continue to envolve. In the present times, public is not shouting for a written constitution because it does understand the conventions which govern political procedure.
The current system provides also a strong and effective government. There is a liability and suppreme authority. The effective constitution has to limit and control the behaviour of the government. There were many countries in the past with the codified – written constitutions and the governments have ignored them. There have been no methods of enforcing the principles of the constitution against the government. Such was the situation in the countries of the communistic block included Czechoslovakia.
One of the benefits of the current system is aslo it’s flexibility. A distinction is commonly made between countries with rigid constitutions and those with flexible constitutions. A constitution is said to be rigid when there is a special procedure for constitutional ammendment, different from passing ordinary laws. The British Constitution is said to be flexible, in that it is so shapeless and there is no formal method of changing it. Change can be achieved by simple Act of Parliament - such as the 1911 Parliament Act (which restricted the power of the House of Lords), or by changes in the way things are done, which are called conventions. If they have a political mandate from the people, the government can reform the constitution, as with the example of the House of Lords. If they had to have a 2/3 majority in both houses, this measure would never have been passed
On the other hand unwritten constitutions can sometimes in practice be resistant to changes. Many aspects of the British system are very difficult to change because of the widespread assumptions about how the system works and because of the values held by politicians and by the British people.
All to all, we know what is best for people now, but not sure if it will still be in 100 years time.
The other feature of uncodified constitutioanry is that it is unitary. There are various types of constitutional separation of power in the world, and a distinction is often seen between confederal, federal and unitary systems. A unitary system is one where sovereignty or supreme authority is in the hands of a single source. Regional or local governments may exist and may have considerable powers, but these are under powers delegated by the national authority.
On the other hand there are significant aspects for codified constitution which are important to mention.
One of the most important feature of the written and codified constitution of the UK is united with Parliament. In the present days Parliament is really unrestrained. It can make or unmake really any law and cannot be checked by any other branch of the system. The British Parliament is subject to no authority beyond itself and this goes against the principle of the rule of law which democracy is based on. The next thing, is that parliament is heavy workload, which can mean that sometimes poor laws are passed. According to the parliament, a codified constitution would be much more effective to change mentioned aspects above.
The other significant features would be the feature of protection an independent judiciary, guaranteed and identified basic rights of citizens, less constitutional crises about a question what an „unconstitutional beaviour“ is and last but not least a protection from extremists. A written constitution would for example offer protection if an extremist came to power and wanted to disregard democratic procedures. Those who want a codified constitution believe, that it should be written so that the public has access to it – as opposed to just constitutional experts who know where to look and how to interpret it. Those believe that there are more arguments for rather than against adopting a written constitution as soon as possible.
The Sovereignty of Parliament
The sovereignty of parliament is another controversial question. When we talk about 'Parliament' and 'parliamentary sovereignty' what exactly does it mean? A doctrine of parliament sovereignty is slowly changing and is no longer absolute but is still a central feature of the British constitutional system. It means, that parliament is the law-making body in the U.K. and has the absolute legal right to make any law it chooses and to amend or repeal existing laws. In other words, Parliament holds the supreme authority in the UK
The Sovereignty of Parliament means that statutes are supreme over common law - judges play a much smaller role in the British political process than is the case in other countries. In political terms, control of Parliament is mostly in the hands of the government.
"The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is perhaps the outstanding feature of the Constitution. Sovereignty, or the power to make laws, is exercised by the Queen, Lords, and Commons assembled. Ironically, it is this which renders the British Constitution 'unconstitutional' in the eyes of some observers. There is no judicial review in Britain; the courts cannot set aside, but can only interpret, statute law. It is for Parliament to make and change the law."(1)
Traditionally there have been four aspects to the principle:
a. There is no higher legal authority than parliament in the UK.
b. No court or judge can declare an Act of Parliament invalid or non-constitutional. This
aspect of sovereignty is gradually decreasing
c. There are no limits to Parliament's ability to pass legislation - except an exception of EU
matters
d. no Parliament can pass an act which a successor Parliament cannot repeal
But isn´t this sovereignty more of a memory than a reality? Parliamentary Sovereignty is still regardeded as the main principle of the British Constitution. Regarding to this question, it is more than sure, that parliament sovereignty in Britain is slowly decreasing, and a written constitution would not only decrease government sovereignty but also increase sovereignty of the judicial system. An inflexible, rigid written constitution would evolve more power into the people and the courts and decrease the power of decision-making executive. This would be especially beneficial with Europe, because Britain is the only member of the EU without a written constitution, and a written constitution may increase its sovereignty within Europe.
Enlglish Common Law
England´s traditional common law have been change by an influence of the strong European approach. In Britain there is basically known two kinds of law. Statute Law, which is made by Parliament and the Common Law, which is law made by the decisions of the courts in specific cases brought over the years. Although the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is derived from the common law, as the main source of Constitutional Law is considered common law less than statute law. This significant change is dated mostly over the last 200 years.
Since joining the European Community, Britain has been bound by laws made by the EU. So far these laws and other rulings have largely affected the whole activity of the British government. Also the electoral system has been affected, in that British members of the European Parliament are now directly elected instead of being indirectly chosen by Parliament. The interest in matters such as the Bill of Rights has been stimulated by British membership, in that most European countries have such documents as part of their constitutional arrangements.
To conclude, there are many aspects for but also against adopting a written codified constituion. The whole system of British Constitution is difficult to grasp and to judge whether to adpot a codified constitution is a question for lawyers and British people. It is believed that if something is not broke, it is not good to try to fix it, and however the introduction of a written constitution is possible, it would be extremely time consuming to produce it. Just future will show if a natural evolution will change the system.
1. Dennis Kavanagh: British Politics. Continuities and Change, OUP, 1990, 2nd.ed., p.39.