Dicuss the Advantages and Disadvantages of Britain Changing to a Codified Constitution

387 Words2 Pages
There many arguments for and against Britain having a codified constitution but one could say that they are too rigid for such a time of social change. Firstly, a codified constitution is limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Both of which were shown in Blair and Thatcher’s Governments. It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’. Secondly, a codified constitution would allows for neutral interpretation, which means that the constitution would be policed by senior judges, who would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies. Thirdly, a codified constitution would protect rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens. One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty. However, codified constitutions are sometimes to rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law. It is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend a constitution as the Constitution is so entrenched. Therefore, it is difficult to keep a constitution up-to-date, this is very bad, especially in our modern ‘ever-changing environment. Furthermore, if we adopt a codified constitution then one of the key principles in the UK’s representative democracy would be completely undermined, Parliamentary Sovereignty would effectively be abolished as a codified constitution would mean the establishment of an authority higher than
Open Document