Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK

Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK

The UK constitution has been around for over 300 years, and is renowned around the world for its efficiency, however, in recent years, politics has taken a change, that most would say is for the better. These changes leave the UK’s constitution looking rather dated in comparison, and some critics say that it is time for a drastic change in our constitution, however is this drastic change really needed for a system that’s worked well for so long already?

The UK constitution is uncodified, meaning that it is not written down in one continuous document. While there are those who say this leaves the people in a haze about their rights, it allows for swift changes to anything that needs done, this is immensely helpful for times of crisis, when the public look to government to quickly make decisions. If the constitution was codified, it would become entrenched, meaning that for it to be changed, a long arduous process would have to be taken. The current constitution can easily be changed by every government that comes into power, no matter how good or bad the last one was, allowing government to rule comfortably. If the constitution was codified, then a general consensus across all parties would have to be made so that no matter who is in power, the constitution still applies, the way politics works in the UK however, this would probably never happen as each party is very different to the other, and a codified constitution would only limit the abilities of each government.