Uk's Written Constitution: Pros, Cons, And Questions

The UK is one of the few countries in the world without a written constitution. Instead, the UK's constitution is spread across various sources, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions), and decisions made by judges. This unique feature of the UK's constitution has led to debates about whether the country should adopt a written constitution. Proponents of a written constitution argue that it would provide clarity and organisation, make the rules more understandable and enforceable, and protect against abuse of power. On the other hand, critics argue that a written constitution may affect democratic rule, lead to judicial tyranny, and reduce the flexibility that the current system provides in adapting to a complex and changing world. This discussion weighs the advantages of a written constitution, such as increased transparency and accountability, against potential disadvantages, including the challenging process of its creation and the risk of hindering democratic principles.

Explore related products

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$39 $42.5

The Essential Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches and Writings

$15.96 $16.95

The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution (Witness to History)

$11.99 $17.99

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

$22.38 $32

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 38: Bill of Rights, No. 2, The Public Debate, September 1787-May 1788 (Volume 38)

$95

The UK constitution is uncodified and unwritten, providing flexibility and adaptability

The UK is one of the few countries in the world without a written constitution. Instead, its constitution is made up of a variety of legal and non-legal sources. This has stood the test of time, but critics argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse. For example, there are few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons, which could alter the rules for its own advantage.

The UK's uncodified constitution is praised for its flexibility and adaptability. As there is no single document, the constitution can be modified and added to reasonably easily. This allows for a pragmatic approach, where different things can be tried, tested, and developed, with an optimal arrangement being honed over time. For instance, the Sewel Convention was created in 1999, prohibiting Parliament from legislating on matters that had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament without obtaining its consent.

The UK's unwritten constitution also means that the process for change is smoother. Parliament can simply create a new Act, passed by a majority in both houses, which will come into effect as any other Act of Parliament would. If the UK had a codified constitution, the procedure for changing it would be more complicated and time-consuming, requiring, for example, a supermajority in Parliament or a referendum. This flexibility has allowed the constitution to move with the times, preventing it from becoming irrelevant or stuck with elements that no longer apply.

However, some argue that the UK's uncodified constitution is confusing and ambiguous. It is also argued that a written constitution would make the rules clearer and increase the power of the courts, as it would be codified as law. Nevertheless, the practical difficulties of codifying the constitution may outweigh these advantages. Determining the precise content of the constitution would be challenging due to the undefined and non-legally binding nature of its unwritten sources.

A written constitution would provide clarity and accessibility, making individual rights easier to determine

The UK is unusual in that it does not have a written constitution. Instead, it has an uncodified constitution, which is made up of a variety of legal and non-legal sources. This has stood the test of time, but critics argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse.

However, the precise content of a written constitution for the UK would be difficult to determine due to the undefined and non-legally binding nature of some of its sources. While a written constitution may provide clarity, it may also introduce ambiguity and contradiction as it would need to reconcile formally contradictory principles and acknowledge differences.

The UK's current uncodified constitution is flexible and can be modified and added to reasonably easily. This allows it to evolve over time and adapt to changing circumstances, attitudes, and political realities. It can also prevent the government from becoming too powerful as each new government can change laws that no longer reflect the needs and views of the electorate.

The introduction of a written constitution would shift power from the elected executive to the unelected judiciary, allowing judges to make political decisions and interpret the constitution through their personal preferences and values. This could diminish democratic rule and lead to judicial tyranny.

Critics argue that the UK's uncodified constitution leaves the political system open to abuse, with few checks on the government's power

Critics of the UK's uncodified constitution argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse, with few checks on the government's power. They point out that there is no single document outlining the authority of the government's main organs, such as the Crown, the Cabinet, Parliament, and the courts.

One of the main arguments for a written constitution is that it would provide a clear framework for the functions and powers of the government and its institutions. It would set out the principles, rules, and laws that establish and underpin the political system, creating a system of checks and balances to hold the government accountable.

In the current system, there are few barriers to prevent a powerful government with a majority in the House of Commons from altering the rules for its own advantage. In theory, such a government could abolish devolved legislatures and repeal human rights laws. The flexibility of the uncodified constitution, which allows for easy modification, can be seen as a double-edged sword in this context.

However, proponents of the uncodified constitution argue that it allows for a pragmatic approach, where different policies can be tried, tested, and developed over time. They highlight the challenges of codifying a constitution that has evolved over many years and is based on various legal and non-legal sources, such as conventions. Determining the precise content of a written constitution would be a complex task, and there is a risk of losing the flexibility that the current system provides.

Additionally, critics of a written constitution argue that it could lead to judicial tyranny, with judges, who are not elected representatives, making political decisions and interpreting the constitution through their personal preferences and values. This could potentially diminish democratic rule in the UK by taking power away from the elected representatives in the House of Commons. It could also challenge the principle of parliamentary supremacy, which is a key feature of the UK's uncodified constitution.

Explore related products

Constitution in Crisis: The New Putney Debates

$28.07

The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793–1794: Toward the Completion of the American Founding

$19.25 $12

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 39: Bill of Rights, No. 3, The Public Debate, 4 June-31 December 1788 (Volume 39)

$95

What Does the Constitution Actually Say?: A Non-Boring Guide to How Our Democracy Is Supposed to Work

$18.22 $19.99

The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American Republic (Witness to History)

$2.99 $22

Contemporary Climate Change Debates: A Student Primer

$43.99 $54.99

A codified constitution would increase the power of the courts, which could lead to judicial tyranny and affect democratic rule

The UK's constitution is unique in that it is uncodified, with no single document outlining the distribution of power. Instead, it is a series of rules that have formed over the years through legal and non-legal sources. This has led to debates about whether the UK should adopt a written constitution.

One argument against codification is the potential increase in power of the courts and the judiciary, which could lead to judicial tyranny and affect democratic rule. The interpretation of a codified constitution is left to judges, and their personal preferences and values could influence their decisions. As they are not elected representatives, their increased power could be seen as diminishing the democratic rule in the UK by taking power away from the elected members of the House of Commons.

The UK's current system of parliamentary supremacy means that laws are passed by a democratically elected body that represents the people. This allows the government, as an elected body, to have the power to change the constitution as necessary, with a simple majority in the House of Commons. This flexibility allows the constitution to adapt to the needs and views of the electorate, preventing it from becoming stuck with outdated elements.

However, critics argue that the UK's uncodified constitution leaves the political system open to abuse, with few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons. A powerful government could, in theory, abolish devolved legislatures and repeal human rights laws. The flexibility of the current system could also be seen as a disadvantage, as it allows for poorly thought-out changes to be rushed through.

While a codified constitution would provide clarity and make the rules more accessible to the public, it could also lead to increased power for the courts, potentially affecting the democratic rule that currently exists. The UK's current uncodified constitution, with its flexibility and adaptability, may be better suited to the country's needs, despite the potential advantages of a written constitution.

The process of codifying the UK constitution would be demanding and complex, requiring deep changes to the legal and political culture

The UK's constitution is not contained in a single document but is instead made up of a variety of legal and non-legal sources. This has stood the test of time, but critics argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse. The process of codifying the UK's constitution would be demanding and complex, requiring deep changes to the legal and political culture.

The precise content of a codified UK constitution would be difficult to determine. The constitution draws on unwritten sources such as conventions, which are mostly undefined and not legally binding. While it would be advantageous to gather these conventions together, it would be a disadvantage to include them in the constitution as binding obligations as they would lose their essence of being binding on a non-legal basis.

The UK's uncodified constitution is flexible and can be modified and added to relatively easily. It can be changed by a simple majority in the House of Commons, allowing the government to pass Acts of Parliament without much trouble. This flexibility has allowed the constitution to move with the times, preventing it from becoming irrelevant.

In contrast, the procedure for changing a codified constitution would be more complicated and time-consuming. It might require a supermajority in Parliament or even a referendum. This would make it harder for the constitution to adapt to changing circumstances.

The adoption of a codified constitution could also have implications for the UK's system of government. It could increase the power of the courts and judges, potentially affecting the democratic rule in the UK if judges were able to make political decisions.

Frequently asked questions