Britain's Unwritten Constitution: Time For Change?

Britain is one of the few countries in the world without a written constitution. Instead, it has an uncodified constitution, a sprawling collection of documents, including unwritten conventions, royal prerogatives, and powerful executives. While some argue that Britain does not need a written constitution, others believe it is necessary to provide clarity and protect the rights of citizens and the devolved nations. This essay will explore both sides of the argument and discuss whether Britain needs a written constitution.

Explore related products

The English Constitution: Parliament and the British monarchy, and the contrasts between British and American government

$12.38

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Reforming the Constitution: Debates in Twentieth-Century Britain (British Politics and Society)

$32.05 $45.99

The English Constitution (Oxford World's Classics)

$12.97 $13.95

Constitution in Crisis: The New Putney Debates

$28.07

The debate on the American Revolution (Issues in Historiography)

$23.47 $26

The benefits of a flexible constitution

The United Kingdom is one of the few democracies in the world without a written constitution. Instead, it has an uncodified constitution, a collection of laws and customs that govern the political system. The UK's constitution is based on parliamentary supremacy and the separation of powers, with Parliament being the highest source of law in the country.

The benefits of a flexible, unwritten constitution are significant. Firstly, it allows for greater adaptability to changing political and social circumstances. The UK has not experienced a 'constitutional moment' like a revolution or regime change, so its constitution has evolved slowly over time under relative stability. A flexible constitution enables the country to avoid being bound by a static set of rules and, instead, make changes as necessary to suit the prevailing constitutional values of the period.

Secondly, the flexibility of the UK's constitution empowers the government to reform it when needed. For example, the UK government has been able to pass measures such as devolution and reforms to the House of Lords, which may have been more challenging with a rigid, written constitution that requires super-majorities to amend. The UK's constitution can be adapted by the government with a political mandate from the people, ensuring that the constitution remains relevant and responsive to the needs of its citizens.

Additionally, the absence of a written constitution in the UK has allowed for the protection of rights and freedoms through other means, such as the Human Rights Act. While this Act does not have the same status as a list of fundamental rights in a codified constitution, it demonstrates that the UK can safeguard rights without necessarily having them entrenched in a single document.

Finally, the UK's flexible constitution has contributed to its political stability. The country has not experienced the same level of constitutional crises as other nations with written constitutions. The ability to amend the constitution through parliamentary processes, rather than judicial review, ensures that the government can address issues and make changes without being constrained by a rigid set of rules.

In conclusion, while there are arguments for codifying the UK's constitution, the benefits of a flexible constitution are significant. It allows for adaptability, empowers the government to make necessary reforms, provides alternative means of protecting rights, and contributes to political stability.

The UK's unusual uncodified constitution

The UK is unusual in not having a written constitution, instead relying on a collection of laws and customs that govern its political system. This is in contrast to the majority of other democracies, which have codified constitutions outlining the fundamental rules and principles of the state. The absence of a written constitution in the UK can be attributed to its stable history, lacking a "constitutional moment" such as a revolution or regime change that would have prompted a need for codification.

The UK's uncodified constitution has both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, it offers flexibility, allowing the government to reform the constitution as needed with a political mandate from the people. For example, the UK has been able to implement devolution and reform the House of Lords without the rigid constraints of a written constitution. Additionally, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a cornerstone of the UK's system, asserts that Parliament is the highest source of law and can make, break, or amend laws as needed.

However, the lack of a written constitution has also led to concerns about the protection of human rights and the division of powers. The Human Rights Act, for instance, can be easily amended or repealed by a simple majority in Parliament, leaving human rights vulnerable to political whims. The unwritten nature of the constitution also makes the division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary less clear, as seen in the Brexit negotiations where the Supreme Court had to intervene due to the government's reliance on the royal prerogative.

Proponents of a written constitution argue that it would provide much-needed clarity and stability to the UK's political system, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and establishing clear boundaries between the branches of government. It would also bring the UK in line with most other democracies, providing a more modern and comprehensive framework for governance.

On the other hand, opponents argue that codifying the constitution would deprive it of its flexibility, making it difficult to adapt to changing political and social circumstances. They also highlight the UK's unique historical context and principles, which have allowed the current system to function for several hundred years without a written constitution.

Human rights and the constitution

The UK is one of only a few democracies in the world without a written constitution, instead relying on a collection of laws and customs that have evolved over time to govern its political system. This lack of a codified constitution has led to criticism that the UK's political system is open to abuse, with few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons.

The UK's uncodified constitution, some argue, gives elected politicians, rather than unelected judges, the final say. However, the lack of clarity in the unwritten conventions makes it difficult for citizens to understand the rules by which they are governed, and therefore to know when a government is abusing its position. This ambiguity can be exploited by those in power, as they can more easily get away with things that would be more difficult if the rules were clearer.

The Human Rights Act 1998, for example, does not enjoy the same status as a list of fundamental rights in a codified constitution. It can be amended or repealed with a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament and could be repealed with a majority of just one MP. The Conservative Party has, in the past, said it would replace the Human Rights Act, and Brexit may compound the situation, as the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be carried over.

A written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights would provide much stronger protection for the rights of UK citizens. It would also provide clarity for those working within the system and for those who wished to scrutinise it.

Explore related products

The British Constitution

$14.03 $34.99

Beyond Brexit: Towards a British Constitution

$17.95 $19.95

Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention: Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787, for the Purpose of Forming the Constitution of the ... Esquire, Chief Justice of New York, and

$34.97

The British Constitution: Its Growth and Character

$0.99

Debate on the subject of confederation with Canada

$17.75

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787: ... Martin's Letter, Yates's Mi.. Volume 5

$8.95 $25.99

The constitution's role in Brexit

The UK is one of only a few democracies in the world without a written constitution, instead relying on a collection of laws and customs to govern its political system. This has been the case since 1688, as Britain has not experienced a "constitutional moment" like a revolution or regime change that would have necessitated a written constitution. While the UK's unwritten constitution has worked well until now, some argue that a written constitution is necessary to provide clarity and protect fundamental rights, especially in light of Brexit.

The role of the constitution in Brexit has been a topic of discussion and analysis, with some arguing that a written constitution could have provided a clearer framework for the process. For example, a written constitution could have delineated the relationship between the major institutions of the state, such as the executive and the legislature, and set out the position of devolved administrations, which may have impacted the Brexit process.

In terms of rights, the UK's Human Rights Act does not have the same status as a list of fundamental rights in a codified constitution and could be repealed with a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament. Brexit has further compounded this situation, as the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights will no longer apply. A written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights could have provided stronger protection for citizens' rights during and after the Brexit process.

However, others argue that the flexibility of the UK's unwritten constitution has allowed the government to reform it as needed, such as in the case of the House of Lords. A written constitution could make it nearly impossible to make changes, and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of the UK's unwritten constitution, would be compromised as written constitutions are ruled upon by judges.

In conclusion, while the UK's unwritten constitution has generally worked well, the Brexit process has highlighted the potential benefits of a written constitution in providing clarity and protecting rights. However, the flexibility of the current system has also allowed for necessary reforms, and any move towards a written constitution would need to carefully consider these factors to ensure the best outcome for the country.

The constitution and devolution

The UK is unusual in not having a written constitution, instead relying on a collection of laws and customs that govern its political system. This is due to the absence of a critical moment in history, such as a revolution or regime change, that would have necessitated a "constitutional moment". As a result, the UK constitution has evolved slowly over time under relative stability, and it has never been deemed necessary to list the fundamental laws and principles in a single document.

However, the current devolution settlement has highlighted the need for a written constitution that properly sets out the position of the devolved administrations. Devolution has been granted to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but this has not equated with greater power-sharing. These devolved nations have limited input over UK-wide policy, even when it significantly impacts their future, as seen with Brexit. The centralist UK government ignored Scotland's vote to remain in the EU and its refusal to consent to Brexit legislation, leading to concerns about the breakup of the UK.

A written constitution could provide clarity and stability to the current system by delineating the relationships between the major institutions of the state and between the state and its citizens. It would also entrench fundamental rights and protect them from being repealed by a simple majority in Parliament, as is currently possible with the Human Rights Act.

On the other hand, some argue that a written constitution is unnecessary and could do more harm than good. The current system is flexible, allowing the government to reform the constitution with a political mandate from the people, as seen with the House of Lords reforms. Additionally, the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, where Parliament is supreme and can make or break laws, would become redundant if a written constitution were adopted, as judges would rule on constitutional matters.

In conclusion, while the UK is unusual in lacking a written constitution, the recent devolution efforts and Brexit negotiations have brought to light the complexities of the current system and the need for clarity in the division of powers. A written constitution could provide stability and protect the rights of citizens and the devolved nations. However, others argue that the flexibility of the current system is beneficial and that a written constitution would hinder the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Frequently asked questions