Politics Write an Argument Against the Adoption of a Codified Constitution for the Uk.

449 Words2 Pages
Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK The current constitution of the UK is uncodified and the UK’s long period of unbroken democratic rule is often seen as evidence of the strength of its constitutional system. The UK’s constitution is flexible and easy to change, this is useful as it is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend. It is a flexible constitution because it is not entrenched, the advantage of this is that it is up to date and relevant and it can adapt to changing political and social circumstances. If the UK’s constitution was to become codified then it would become more rigid because higher law is more difficult to change than statute law. Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment. If the UK’s constitution became codified then there would be a risk of judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to enforce the constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. If it became codified then it would be reflective of the values and preferences of senior judges not of the general public who the rules mainly affect. The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public. For example, the power of the House of Lords was reduced through the Parliament Acts. Another reason against codifying the UK’s constitution is that the documents would become legalistic. This is an issue as it would only be understood by lawyers and judges and not by the public who have significantly less political knowledge. As the UK doesn't have a written constitution then government decisions that are backed by parliament cannot be over turned by the judiciary, this again stops the constitution being reflective of the
Open Document