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 wanted 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 in that 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 with a codified document as a point of reference. Also the public will be able to read and comprehend our constitution considerably better than they do at present. A written constitution could be taught in schools and this would not only increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws included in the constitution. 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, the running of the country at present does not coincide with the laws that were made hundreds of years ago, as they are simply out of date and not applicable to today’s society. A written document would not only modernise British law, but would also follow the majority of the countries in the world, who have working proof that written constitutions are beneficial and successful.
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 may run in a different way than a country with a written constitution such as America, is certainly isn’t less prosperous and flourishing than the US.
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.
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 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.
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 would then 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 unconstitutional actions, which is undemocratic and unjust.
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 valid reasons for and against written constitutions, in that a written constitution would bring many economical, social and political benefits, and be a worthwhile move for the future of Britain, and will protect against arbitrary government. However by contrast 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 is simply no necessity for one, in my belief.
