Discuss whether the United Kingdom now requires a written
constitution
1. The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the few countries that operate
without a written constitution. Whilst many of the constitution is being
incorporated in statutes, there is still a great part of the constitution
remaining unwritten such as conventions. This grants the government the
flexibility needed to adapt to change, however, it is based on
unidentifiable rules. Hence, there is a contention surrounding the
question, “Should the UK adopt a written constitution?” This question
requires an examination in the UK constitution, to identity its type and
whether the UK requires a written constitution. A discussion will be given
on the nature of the UK constitution in contrast to that of a written one,
along with a case for and against the UK adopting a written constitution.
A constitution is known to the set of laws, rules and practices that create
the basic institutions of the state and its component and related parts, as
per the House of Lords Select Committee. A constitution is concerned with
the structure of the state, the relationship between the different
institutions within the state and the between those institutions and the
citizens. Generally, nations would possess a written, codified constitution,
that is a document with special legal sanctity that sets out the framework
and functions of the different organs of a government and the principles
by which they must operate. (Bradley A. and K. Ewing). The UK, however,
does not possess a single document named “The British Constitution,” but
this does not mean the UK does not have a constitution. As per Sir Ivor
Jennings, the UK is said to have an ‘uncodified’ constitution rather than an
‘unwritten.’
This uncodified aspect of the UK constitution is attributable to the unique
historical background of the UK, its relatively stable and evolutionary
history. This is in contrast to the countries consisting of a codified
constitution that has experienced a ‘constitutional moment’ for example,
a revolution (France 1789), creation of a new state (USA 1787), the
conferral of independence (India 1949) or following a war or change in
political structure (Germany 1948).
The UK constitution can be described as a ‘…whole system of government
of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern
the government,’ as per Where K.C in Modern Constitutions. The UK has
various sources that can be reported as a ‘dispersed rulebook.’ There are
legal sources such as statutes, the Magna Carta 1215 which pronounced
that the King should act in accordance with the law, Bills of Rights 1689,
which restricted the monarch’s powers, and the Human Rights Act 1998
which incorporated the ECHR rights into domestic law. Common law,
which are the binding judicial decisions, seen in cases like Entick v
Carrington 1765, R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
2017. Royal prerogative as defined by A.V Dicey as the ‘residue of the
, arbitrary and discretionary powers legally left in the hands of the crown,’
and more. These legal sources which can be enforced by the courts can
be contrasted to those non-legal sources such as conventions and
constitutional principles. Conventions are primarily the non-legal source of
the UK constitution which are the ‘understandings, habits or practices,’
that regulate ministerial behaviour and ‘are not enforced in the courts,’ as
per A.V Dicey. For example, royal assent must be given by the Queen
before a bill becomes legislation, the Prime Minister appointed must be
the leader of the political party and there is the doctrines of collective and
individual ministerial responsibility.
It can be argued that the UK should adopt a written constitution as per
Vernon Bogdanor, ‘Should Britain have a written constitution?’ because ‘…
a codified constitution provides a clear, accessible and coherent account
of the body of fundamental rules and principles…it defines the powers of
the institutions of government and sets out the rights of individuals and
their responsibilities.’ Hence, when such as system is incorporated,
everyone would be aware of the principles that govern the institutions and
their members in performing their public duties. Whereas the UK’s
constitution of non-legal sources, treaties, common law and unwritten
conventions can be baffling to most. In addition to this, due to the
flexibility of the UK constitution, there is the risk of government
introducing political and constitutional reform to accommodate
themselves and enhance their own convenience. A written constitution
can solve these issues as it will allow for individuals to comprehend the
laws of the state and its entrenched aspect will ensure constitutional rules
aren’t altered easily. This written constitution would also encourage the
sovereignty of citizens and become a symbol of unity and national identity
and also a source of national pride.
While the case for a written constitution in the UK is strong, the UK hasn’t
done so because it is considered to unnecessary, undesirable and un-
British. Being consistent with its current constitution demonstrates the
stability and success of the Westminster system of parliamentary
democracy. Whereas, states of a written constitution were formed out of a
‘constitutional moment’ such as revolution or independence for example a
revolution in France 1789 or the creation of a new state, the USA 1787.
The UK’s unwritten constitution is a reminder of its stable and
evolutionary history in which the UK has taken pride into having. Whilst
many claim it is outdated and the discuss the risk the flexibility carries, its
flexibility allows for easy transitions when changes are made to solve
practical problems, in contrast to the written constitution’s rigid
entrenched procedures that brings difficulty in making alterations such as
the USA’s repeated attempts to the modify ‘gun laws’ by changing the
‘right to bear arms,’ 1791, Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, in relation to government making reforms at their own
convenience with inadequate checks and balances, the UK’s constitution
constitution
1. The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the few countries that operate
without a written constitution. Whilst many of the constitution is being
incorporated in statutes, there is still a great part of the constitution
remaining unwritten such as conventions. This grants the government the
flexibility needed to adapt to change, however, it is based on
unidentifiable rules. Hence, there is a contention surrounding the
question, “Should the UK adopt a written constitution?” This question
requires an examination in the UK constitution, to identity its type and
whether the UK requires a written constitution. A discussion will be given
on the nature of the UK constitution in contrast to that of a written one,
along with a case for and against the UK adopting a written constitution.
A constitution is known to the set of laws, rules and practices that create
the basic institutions of the state and its component and related parts, as
per the House of Lords Select Committee. A constitution is concerned with
the structure of the state, the relationship between the different
institutions within the state and the between those institutions and the
citizens. Generally, nations would possess a written, codified constitution,
that is a document with special legal sanctity that sets out the framework
and functions of the different organs of a government and the principles
by which they must operate. (Bradley A. and K. Ewing). The UK, however,
does not possess a single document named “The British Constitution,” but
this does not mean the UK does not have a constitution. As per Sir Ivor
Jennings, the UK is said to have an ‘uncodified’ constitution rather than an
‘unwritten.’
This uncodified aspect of the UK constitution is attributable to the unique
historical background of the UK, its relatively stable and evolutionary
history. This is in contrast to the countries consisting of a codified
constitution that has experienced a ‘constitutional moment’ for example,
a revolution (France 1789), creation of a new state (USA 1787), the
conferral of independence (India 1949) or following a war or change in
political structure (Germany 1948).
The UK constitution can be described as a ‘…whole system of government
of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern
the government,’ as per Where K.C in Modern Constitutions. The UK has
various sources that can be reported as a ‘dispersed rulebook.’ There are
legal sources such as statutes, the Magna Carta 1215 which pronounced
that the King should act in accordance with the law, Bills of Rights 1689,
which restricted the monarch’s powers, and the Human Rights Act 1998
which incorporated the ECHR rights into domestic law. Common law,
which are the binding judicial decisions, seen in cases like Entick v
Carrington 1765, R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
2017. Royal prerogative as defined by A.V Dicey as the ‘residue of the
, arbitrary and discretionary powers legally left in the hands of the crown,’
and more. These legal sources which can be enforced by the courts can
be contrasted to those non-legal sources such as conventions and
constitutional principles. Conventions are primarily the non-legal source of
the UK constitution which are the ‘understandings, habits or practices,’
that regulate ministerial behaviour and ‘are not enforced in the courts,’ as
per A.V Dicey. For example, royal assent must be given by the Queen
before a bill becomes legislation, the Prime Minister appointed must be
the leader of the political party and there is the doctrines of collective and
individual ministerial responsibility.
It can be argued that the UK should adopt a written constitution as per
Vernon Bogdanor, ‘Should Britain have a written constitution?’ because ‘…
a codified constitution provides a clear, accessible and coherent account
of the body of fundamental rules and principles…it defines the powers of
the institutions of government and sets out the rights of individuals and
their responsibilities.’ Hence, when such as system is incorporated,
everyone would be aware of the principles that govern the institutions and
their members in performing their public duties. Whereas the UK’s
constitution of non-legal sources, treaties, common law and unwritten
conventions can be baffling to most. In addition to this, due to the
flexibility of the UK constitution, there is the risk of government
introducing political and constitutional reform to accommodate
themselves and enhance their own convenience. A written constitution
can solve these issues as it will allow for individuals to comprehend the
laws of the state and its entrenched aspect will ensure constitutional rules
aren’t altered easily. This written constitution would also encourage the
sovereignty of citizens and become a symbol of unity and national identity
and also a source of national pride.
While the case for a written constitution in the UK is strong, the UK hasn’t
done so because it is considered to unnecessary, undesirable and un-
British. Being consistent with its current constitution demonstrates the
stability and success of the Westminster system of parliamentary
democracy. Whereas, states of a written constitution were formed out of a
‘constitutional moment’ such as revolution or independence for example a
revolution in France 1789 or the creation of a new state, the USA 1787.
The UK’s unwritten constitution is a reminder of its stable and
evolutionary history in which the UK has taken pride into having. Whilst
many claim it is outdated and the discuss the risk the flexibility carries, its
flexibility allows for easy transitions when changes are made to solve
practical problems, in contrast to the written constitution’s rigid
entrenched procedures that brings difficulty in making alterations such as
the USA’s repeated attempts to the modify ‘gun laws’ by changing the
‘right to bear arms,’ 1791, Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, in relation to government making reforms at their own
convenience with inadequate checks and balances, the UK’s constitution
