“The case for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong.”
The UK has an uncodified constitution which means that the laws and regulations are not systematic. They are not written down in one document (such as the USA’s constitution is codified and can be brought on eBay). This means that the constitution is easily amended which helps it to keep up to date with the ever changing society we live in. There are several arguments for and against the use of an uncodified constitution with the main two comparisons in government being the UK (uncodified) and the USA (codified).
To begin with, an uncodified constitution is written down in many different documents. Although the UK does has Works of Authority (Books containing as much as the constitution as possible), there still isn’t a set book of what the constitution is. You can’t learn your rights or what the constitution entails off by heart as it is ever changing. Our constitution is very flexible which enables laws to be easily amended. This was due to the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. It would be incredibly hard to make Britain codified as all the documents are separate with different sources. We couldn’t all agree on one interpretation of the constitution. Part of our freedom is to interpret the law and constitution. As well as this, the main point is that the uncodified constitution is working – why change it? It has worked for years and if it isn’t broken don’t try and fix it. This means that we can add laws or change law according to new information or with society changing. Our constitution is unentrenched. On the other hand, with a codified constitution, the public have a much greater understanding of their rights. This also means they know when they need protection and what from thus showing they have an entrenched constitution. Most of the modern world has a codified constitution and everyone is growing towards that. It is proven that codified constitutions are what are popularly followed.