Should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why, if not why?

A codified constitution is an authorative document and it constitutes higher law, and it binds all political institutions including those that make ordinary law, this therefore gives rise to a two tier legal system. A codified constitution also is entrenched, it is therefore difficult to amend and or abolish, which can present issues in emergency. Codified constitutions are judicable so all political bodies are subject to authority of the courts. Whereas a uncodified constitution is not authoritative and it only gives way to a single tier legal system with no form of higher law. It is also not entrenched this therefore is means parliament is sovereign. An uncodified constitution is also not judicable, judges do not have a  legal standard against which they can declare that the actions of other bodies are ‘constitutional’ or ‘unconstitutional’.

There are many argument as to why the UK should adopt a codified constitution, but also many reasons to why we should not. A major disadvantage therefore of the UK’s unwritten constitution is that in the

absence of any higher form of law it is virtually impossible to ensure that the

rights of minorities and individual citizens are protected against legislative

infringement by Parliament. This is also linked to the argument that we give way to elected dictatorship by not having a written constitution that can limit the powers of government. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ was created in 1976 by Lord Hailsham, a former conservative minister. He said that an elected dictatorship occurs under two factors: sovereign power is completely in the hands of parliament and the fact that parliament is routinely controlled and dominated by the current government. The issue of a elective dictatorship is that the concentration of power allows the government of the day to transmogrify the constitution in any way they wish.

However it can be argued that the flexibility of the UK constiutution is a clear strength, it is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend the US constitution for example. Flexibility therefore arises from the fact that the UK constitution is not entrenched, therefore the advantage being that the UK’s constitution stays up to date and relevant. This occurs because it can adapt and respond to changing political and social circumstances. For example in a state of emergency the government can easily find a solution to the problem because their powers aren’t limited due to a flexible uncodified constitution.

Personally, I believe that the UK should adopt a codified constitution in order to protect the rights and civil liberties of the people. I believe that the uncodified constitution we currently live under ignores minorities and contradicts minorities massively, and If a codified constitution was adopted equality would be restored and the morale of the country would be boosted massively also.

Chloe Ives