There are many advantages of adopting a written constitution in the UK and there are many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary people who believe we should have one. Constitutions are supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are maintained, and soak written constitution may not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of the executive, but also prevent the power of the government from being centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the government.
AS the UK has no written constitution it remains that our constitutional rules are flexible thus Britain’s constitution is ever changing without the constraint of a written constitution Britain has been able to keep up with eh times. The idea that the constitution of Britain is shaped by the government of the day gives rise to the pressing debate used by those arguing in favour of a written constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty is one of the principle characteristics on which the constitution of the UK is based on. The meaning of the term is best described by A.V. dicey as parliament has under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further, that no person or body is recognised by law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament. Therefore in theory parliament can pass any legislation or law that it chooses. The adaptability of uncodified constitutions is not always beneficial.
Within the British constitution some conventions have proved to be so adaptable that they can be reshaped to the convenience of the government of the day, even to increase their own power. This indicates that a fully codified written constitution would be unable to keep with eh times, ultimately rendering it obsolete, This therefore means that within the uk there is no such things as constitutional guarantees due to the fact that no legislation is given any special status whether is to be deemed constitutional or not. In any state with a written constitution the constitution is superior to the legislature and it confers and distributes the legislative power. The constitutional document would give constitutional guarantees as the executive would have to honour them. Therefore the document may be seen as a way of restricting the powers of parliament and the executive as the document would be legally entrenched which a big advantage of a written constitution is.
However this may also be seen as a disadvantage as a written constitution is extremely difficult, near impossible to amend or change. The fact that our constitution is unwritten means that parliament can basically pass any law it chooses. Therefore the constitution is far more flexible; which is advantageous as it means the laws of the state will be able to adapt more quickly to social needs.
The British parliament is subject to no authority beyond itself and this goes against the principle of the rule of law which our democracy is based on. The rule of law is generally understood as a tool of political morality which looks at the role of law in securing the correct balance of rights and powers between individuals and the state in free civilised societies. It provides that the executive may do nothing without clear legal authority permitting its actions. It is therefore self-evident that for the rule of law to be effective as a check on the executive, the courts must be able and willing to police the boundaries of the executive’s statutory authority. Which can be seen as an advantage of adopting a written constitution? The modern form of judicial review is designed to uphold a certain interpretation of the rule of law, with its function being to ensure that executive bodies remain within the limits of powers that the executive has granted, or which are recognised by the courts as existing at common law. It’s effective ness and creditability depends on the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary. From a constitutional perspective, judicial review has frequently brought the judiciary into conflict with the executive and raises the question of the supposed independence of the judiciary; therefore limiting the separation of powers within the uk; The creation of the supreme court shows that at the moment our judiciary is relatively weak in its ability to act as a check against parliament. A written constitution would increase its power.
One major function of a constitution written or otherwise, in any democratic society is to protect the basic fundamental rights of the individual; from unnecessary encroachment by the state. The human rights act 1998 incorporated most of the provisions of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of the UK. The act inevitably enhances the role of the judiciary as guardian of individual rights and gives judges a more specific and firm legal basis on which to measure the correct balance of power and rights between the individual and the state. Which acts as one of the UK’s constitutional rules therefore this is a disadvantage of adopting a written constitution as it clearly shows we may not have our constitution in a single document but it does exist.
Although parliament still remains supreme in the UK and could technically repeal this legislation at any time, we might better the individuals by the incorporation of these within a written constitution. Where it cannot be repealed or amended like the ordinary statue law by a simple majority vote in parliament. Therefore a written would be advantageous in protecting the individual’s rights and liberties against the state.
In conclusion a written constitution can be seen as a far more advantageous way of setting out and clarifying the rules and regulations of a state, but it is only appropriate at the right time and in the right circumstances. It can be said that most people in the UK aren’t aware of what a constitution is, and although some may argue that a public insight into politics may be achieved by a written constitution many would oppose this happening. Britain’s present successful judicial system and democratic parliament has remained stable and has a reasonable government for years, why risk detriment to the country if the codified form of a constitution does not necessarily play a part in its effectiveness.
