The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the theoretical and practical reasons
both for and against codifying the UK's constitutional arrangements. We
currently have an outdated "unwritten constitution" that is filled of
references to the past. It is incompatible with either the desires of the
citizens of our nation for the future or the political and social democracy of
the twenty-first century. Nobody in the UK can ignore the uncertainty of the
country's unwritten laws. In order to substitute its nature-based, unwritten
constitution with a separate set of fundamental laws that would set the
framework for how the government operates, the United Kingdom must act.
And they would have no difficulties entering because of the huge crowd.
People are less willing to participate in politics as a result of it, which
disregards the people's right to self-determination. The boundaries of the
British state, as well as how it interacts with Europe and the rest of the
world, could all be clearly stated with a written constitution. It would develop
into a source of the nation's pride, a symbol of national identity, and an
emerging way to discuss it. Lord Bingham said regarding a codified
constitution that it is “ironic that we should have thought it necessary to
bequeath a codified constitution to most of our overseas territories before
granting them their independence, while continuing to regard such provision
as unnecessary for ourselves”.
Many people still argue that constitution being written in the UK would result
into making it useless. Even the two major political parties have not
accepted constitution to be written in their policy yet. The Liberal
Democrats, Charter 88 and its successor Unlock Democracy has
expressed that a written constitution should be used as a weapon for the
revolution in the change of constitution in the UK. This shows that written
constitution is not a desire for the whole community in the UK. The reason
behind this is that as this uncodified constitution has run UK for many
hundred years fruitfully, thus people think that the idea of codification is a
waste of time. In 2008, Professor Barber said that “British Constitution
has, by and large been a success. It has produced stable government and in
terms of democracy, transparency, human rights and the provision of social
welfare-it compares reasonably favorably with many other constitutions…
Unless advocates of a written constitution can show a need for systematic
change, for a new constitutional settlement. It is hard to see what we will
gain by undertaking the exercise”.
Since the British constitution isn't codified or written into law in a single
document, it isn't documented in statue either. Due to its complexity
complicated, some people have even claimed that the UK constitution
doesn't exist. However, the sources of constitution differ and can be divided
both for and against codifying the UK's constitutional arrangements. We
currently have an outdated "unwritten constitution" that is filled of
references to the past. It is incompatible with either the desires of the
citizens of our nation for the future or the political and social democracy of
the twenty-first century. Nobody in the UK can ignore the uncertainty of the
country's unwritten laws. In order to substitute its nature-based, unwritten
constitution with a separate set of fundamental laws that would set the
framework for how the government operates, the United Kingdom must act.
And they would have no difficulties entering because of the huge crowd.
People are less willing to participate in politics as a result of it, which
disregards the people's right to self-determination. The boundaries of the
British state, as well as how it interacts with Europe and the rest of the
world, could all be clearly stated with a written constitution. It would develop
into a source of the nation's pride, a symbol of national identity, and an
emerging way to discuss it. Lord Bingham said regarding a codified
constitution that it is “ironic that we should have thought it necessary to
bequeath a codified constitution to most of our overseas territories before
granting them their independence, while continuing to regard such provision
as unnecessary for ourselves”.
Many people still argue that constitution being written in the UK would result
into making it useless. Even the two major political parties have not
accepted constitution to be written in their policy yet. The Liberal
Democrats, Charter 88 and its successor Unlock Democracy has
expressed that a written constitution should be used as a weapon for the
revolution in the change of constitution in the UK. This shows that written
constitution is not a desire for the whole community in the UK. The reason
behind this is that as this uncodified constitution has run UK for many
hundred years fruitfully, thus people think that the idea of codification is a
waste of time. In 2008, Professor Barber said that “British Constitution
has, by and large been a success. It has produced stable government and in
terms of democracy, transparency, human rights and the provision of social
welfare-it compares reasonably favorably with many other constitutions…
Unless advocates of a written constitution can show a need for systematic
change, for a new constitutional settlement. It is hard to see what we will
gain by undertaking the exercise”.
Since the British constitution isn't codified or written into law in a single
document, it isn't documented in statue either. Due to its complexity
complicated, some people have even claimed that the UK constitution
doesn't exist. However, the sources of constitution differ and can be divided
