If Britain does have a written constitution it would mean that the constitutional law is ‘entrenched’ meaning it can only be repealed or amended by special provisions, but in Parliament this can repeal or amend a constitutional law exactly as it would to any other law. The British constitution is a puzzle. This is because where it is written it is uncodified and scattered across numerous texts, and where it is not written it must be assumed from the behaviour of politicians and officials. It is therefore a matter of interpretation, although it must be added that the meaning of a formal, written constitution is also open to endless legal disputation. Nonetheless, despite its untidiness, there is some order and structure in the British constitution, principle, doctrines that, while never planned, have evolved over time and operated until the 1980s. These are the unitary state, parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional monarchy and elective prime minister and governmental self – restraint.
But the main reason for a written constitution is not in order to write down the role of the crown. It must begin by setting out a country’s aspirations for example, that all citizens should be equal and that the way they are governed should be open, accountable and fair. Its next job is to define the distribution of power, between local, regional, and central government and between the executive and the legislative between who exercises power and who makes the laws. Finally it must set out the rules for changing the rules and it is this function that is the most important of all. In Britain today the government can alter the laws affecting your freedom of speech. A written constitution could protect the fundamental rights and democracy better by requiring a special degree of consent from the people {a referendum} if laws affecting these rights were changed. In other words a written constitution is a way of limiting the power that our system grants to those elected to Downing Street. They are the ones who now enjoy royal prerogative power.
A written constitution would set out the relationship between individuals and the government; it would define the power of the state and its agencies. With unwritten constitution our constitutional insurance is weak and fragile, especially in parts of our constitution such as conventions. These are uncodified
Laws that in reality could easily be eroded by a future radical leader; a written constitution would replace conventions and consensus with contract and law, which would increase our insurance.
A written constitution would allow the British people to appeal to the courts with a written document to back up their claims; a codified document is a point of reference and the public will be able to read and understand our constitution more than they do presently. A written constitution could be taught in schools; this would not only increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws included in the constitution. A written constitution would not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of government, but also prevent the power of the government from being too centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty is slowly diminishing in Britain, and a written constitution would not only decrease government sovereignty but also increase sovereignty of the electorate and the judicial system. An inflexible, rigid written constitution would evolve more power into the people and the courts and disperse the sovereign powers of decision-making and of the executive. This would be especially beneficial with Europe in mind; Britain is the only member in the EU without a written constitution, and a written constitution may increase our sovereignty within Europe.
However even though the introduction of a written constitution is possible, but it would be extremely time consuming to produce and costly especially to the British taxpayers. The written document would be constructed from our present unwritten constitution, therefore it basically would contain the statute laws, conventions and common law that we already have, but written down and restrained from modification. Our unwritten constitution is traditional and if a written one was introduced into British Law, then people who believe the monarchy and the democratic system is old fashioned will demand abolishment or amendment this would cause so many problems and pose a threat to the country if a written constitution was introduced. Most people in Britain don’t even know what the constitution is and if a written constitution were to be brought about with extra taxes to pay for referendums and implementation of the document many people would oppose to it. A written constitution would be unpleasant in Britain, as the power of the courts would increase. If any disputes happened over the relationships between the structure and powers of the government, citizens and government, and different parts of the government, would all have to be settled by the judiciary. Power and sovereignty then would travel from the elected executive to the un-elected judiciary and judges would be able to make political decisions such as make laws and declare actions unconstitutional, which is undemocratic and unjust. Even if the courts were elected by the people to increase democracy, then the judicial system would change into a parliament.
The main argument against a written constitution is that if Britain introduced it the supposed inflexible and rigid nature of written constitutions of other countries is often opened to amendments when laws are out dated. Unless our constitution declared that the constitution could not be amended there is danger that laws may be needed to be changed and it would not be possible. If we adopted a written constitution and amended it whenever necessarily, there would hardly be any difference to the present constitutional system.
In conclusion Britain would need a written constitution because it would bring many social and political benefits and would be a worthwhile move for the future of Britain. A written constitution would be safer for long-term peace as individuals and parliament rights would be codified to prevent possible rebellions and outbreaks. However it would be hard to introduce a written constitution because our country is stable right now and it would pose the country a lot of problems if parliament decided to introduce one.
