“the Uk Should Introduce a Codified Constitution” Discuss

749 Words3 Pages
In the UK we do not currently have a codified constitution nor have we ever had one however recently there have been cases put forward arguing for one suggesting it would be better for the nation. A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules according to which a state is governed, a codified constitution then takes this a step further by entrenching these rules making it harder and generally impossible for them to be changed. I feel that the UK does not actually need a codified constitution. One argument for the introduction of a codified constitution is that liberals argue that it would have a better safeguarding of human rights. With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed. This becomes an unsettling thought to many given that many of the rules within the constitution are what protect us as citizens and so the idea that this would be very easy to change or even get rid of the rights that protect us is very worrying to some. Liberals argue that if we introduced a codified constitution it would allow human rights to be entrenched thus heavily protecting us as citizens. However in the UK there is already a human rights act that offers some level of protection of these rights. Given that there is already some form of protection it would be fair to argue that the UK doesn’t currently need a constitution as there is and hasn’t been any real threat towards people’s rights. An argument against a codified constitution is that the lack of constitutional constraints allows executive government to be strong and decisive. After the 7/7 bombings in London the un-codified constitution meant that the government could act quickly and effectively and change the anti terrorism laws meaning they could hold suspects for 28 days, an increase of 14 days. With a codified constitution this would be have been harder as
Open Document