However an important benefit of codifying the constitution is the existence of entrenchment, which would protect it from any changes unless it has support and in the long-term interest of the country. This would protect British citizens from dictatorship, which many could argue, is in place now. Parliamentary sovereignty defines the politics of the UK; any laws passed are in effect, changes to the constitution. Until the creation of the coalition in May 2010, most governments were the majority party in parliament, this created a system of elective dictatorship where most bills the government put forward in the House of Commons were passed. This questions how democratic and representative parliament currently is. Many people argue that there is too much power centralised at parliament and Westminster, codifying the constitution would clearly limit Westminster’s power and effectively stop Parliamentary sovereignty. However, by limiting the power of Westminster, it would be difficult for parliament to make changes to the law and bypass the red tape of the constitution. In cases of national emergency, where quick decision need to be made parliament would find it difficult to make a decision which does not change the constitution. For example, after the 7/7 bombings in London, parliament was able to pass the Terrorism Act 2006 which allowed suspects to be detained for up to 28 days without charge. In the United States, where the constitution is of such high authority that changes are very difficult, congress takes a long time to approve bills unless it is supported by both the Democrats and Republicans.
In the USA, where the constitution is codified, the document is almost worshipped to the point where Americans can quote directly from it. It creates a sense of patriotism among Americans to refer to this document which their forefathers wrote by hand on the founding of the United States. It also makes the American people more politically aware of politics and their individual rights. If the UK were to codify the constitution, not only would this occur, but having the constitution on one single document would be educational for future citizens and children. However, over time the constitution may become out of date like in America, where the right to bear arms is increasingly becoming a topic for debate. Because the “right to bear arms” is in the constitution, conservatives like the Republicans are reluctant to change it.
The most important argument for the UK to have a codified constitution is that it would protect the individual rights of citizens. Although recently parliament has passed the Human Rights Act 1998 which came into force on 2nd October 2000, parliament can theoretically out rule this Act and pass another law to abolish the Human Rights Act. Parliament can take away our rights at anytime, brining into question whether they should have so much power. A codified constitution would prevent parliament from doing this and safeguard the rights of the people because it is a ‘higher’ law as opposed to a ‘common’ law. On the other hand, a codified constitution would bring the judiciary into politics. The exact meaning of constitutions and how they can be interpreted is often disputed, in the USA this is settled in the Supreme Court resulting in unelected judges having presiding power of the constitution. Critics argue that judges should not have this power, because they have not been elected by the people. What makes them different to a normal citizen politically? Also, the UK Supreme Court is relatively new, and it may not have the reliability compared to other powers such as parliament.
The UK should therefore not codify it’s constitution due to the many reasons against it, until such a time when codification is needed, the current system should continue to be implemented until there is a wide call for change or the codification of the constitution by the majority of the people e.g. if in a referendum more than 50% vote Yes for the codification of the UK constitution.