Another source of the UK constitution comes from works of authority, although they have no legal authority they help with interpretation. An example of one of these works is Erskine Mays (1844) work which is regarded as the ‘Bible’ of parliamentary practice as it is such a detailed work. Another example is A.V. Dicey’s (1884) work which examined the relationship between the law and the 19th century constitution.
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.
Should the UK constitution remain uncodified?
An uncodified constitution is one which is not written down in one place. The UK has an uncodified constitution which is relatively uncommon in today’s world with only two other countries, Israel and New Zealand having an uncodified constitution. There are arguments on both sides as to whether the UK constitution should remain uncodified or not.
One of the arguments for having an uncodified constitution is its flexibility and its ability to cope with the ever changing political process, due to the fact it can be changed by Parliament through statute law. This ability has since allowed devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1997 and the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998. The constitution has proven its worth, operating effectively with no major problems arising from having an uncodified constitution as it can constantly change to suit the circumstances of the current time.
Another argument for an uncodified constitution is that it has evolved and developed alongside the country so that its rules and laws remain relevant to the people of Britain, thus meaning that it reflects the history and values of the British. The nature of the UK’s constitution means that the government is accountable for its actions and decisions making them more responsible which can only be a good thing as it may allow for a more democratic society as the government is under constant scrutiny from opposition and from the public.
However many people would argue against the uncodified nature of the UK’s constitution.
One main argument against the uncodified constitution is that it may be unclear as to when a government has acted unconstitutionally, with no constitutional court to check the states power and defend civil liberties it could lead towards undemocratic and unconstitutional practice amongst the party in power. Some people argue that Parliamentary sovereignty has resulted in an ‘elective dictatorship’ which may increase undemocratic process and threaten individual rights and liberties of the UK citizens
Another argument against the UK’s uncodified constitution is that people’s rights still remain unclear, and up till the passage of the Human Rights Act (1998) rights were simply based upon common law assumption from the public. Although this Act has outlined the basic rights citizens of the UK hold it still does not give them inalienable rights so its provisions can be set aside by Parliament and by the government of the day. With regards to the citizens, a codified constitution would help them to establish values and principles on which the politics of the UK is based, it may help educate them and understand their countries power and ruling.
Overall I believe that although a codified constitution may help more people understand their core political values and principles, but this is simply not necessary as the country has been able to function effectively with an uncodified constitution. The room that the uncodified constitution leaves for interpretation allows for more flexibility allowing the constitution to develop alongside the country as seen by devolution and the Human rights Act. In conclusion I believe the UK’s constitution should remain uncodifed.
