Evaluate how far an uncodified constitution remains appropriate in the modern British political process
The British constitution is uncodified. This means that it is not written in a single document. Its flexibility,
accountability and cultural legacy suggest that it should be retained, not to mention the fact that there is no great
demand for a codified constitution from the British people. However, with the potential for constitutional crises
emerging over devolution and Brexit, there is a possibility that these arguments may no longer be true and that
the codified constitution would be more effective in meeting such challenges.
One argument for remaining of the uncodified constitution is the flexibility it gives to the UK political system.
Major reforms can be carried out simply and fast, as evidenced by the introduction of the Human Rights Act
1998, which was essentially brought in by simple statute law. Another example is the Fixed Term Parliament
Act 2011, which took only 4 months to become the law. This flexibility allows the UK’s uncodified constitution
to adapt and modernise to changing demands and attitudes without major upheaval. Furthermore, devolution,
which came during Blair’s government, has also proved that the constitution is great at responding to the
changes within the country. For example, in 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Scotland Act 1998, Wales Act 1998
were all introduced in response to people’s wishes. This suggests that the flexibility offered by having an
uncodified constitution is appropriate to the British political process far more than entrenched laws and rights
provided by codified constitution. This is because it shows that in the evolving and constantly changing country,
where each year there are lots of unexpected events, for example COVID-19 pandemic, it is far more
appropriate and useful for both the government and people to be able to amend the constitution in response to
them rapidly.
However, such flexibility comes at a price. Basic human rights are not well protected in a system that offers too
much power and control to a government with a simple majority in the House of Commons. Since even the
government was able to suspend the ECHR in the Belmarsh case. The House of Lords held that the provisions
under which detainees were being held at Belmarsh prison were incompatible with Article 5 of the European
Convention of Human Rights – however the Home Secretary was not required to release the prisoners. Another
example is that in the 2017 Conservative manifesto demanded to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace
it with a British Bill of Rights. This suggests that the uncodified constitution is too flexible and is no longer
appropriate in a modern society, since it can be abused by the government, as well as lacks protection for
citizens due to the possibility of removal of any right given to them by the Parliament, since it is sovereign.
Therefore, while the flexibility of the UK constitution can be seen as appropriate in some respects, it is not
really appropriate for a modern democracy facing major constitutional issues, such as Brexit, which should
require some entrenched laws to be stated and taken into account, rather than being able to modify everything on
the go, without proper consideration. Especially, the result of Brexit is seen now, where voters are disappointed
in it, since the 3% difference in votes resulted in such a major change.
It is appropriate that an uncodified constitution ensures decisions are made by a democratically elected and
accountable parliament, not an unelected and unaccountable judiciary. This is because parliament in the UK is
sovereign and fulfils the function of the main legislative body. For example, following the Scottish
Independence referendum 2014, which showed the government and the people the need for further devolution,
Parliament has acted upon the issue and introduced Scotland Act 2016 which gave more powers to the Scottish
Parliament regarding taxation. Another example is the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information
Act 2000 which allowed people to have extended rights and be able to check on the government and officials.
This, therefore, shows that the UK uncodified constitution is still appropriate since it ensures that the people of
the country will get as much information and support as possible, as well as making sure that the parliament is
still representative of the electorate and not abusing its power. Therefore, as the functions are maintained and the
population seems to be happy with the Parliament and the laws they make, it is safe to say that the constitution
remains appropriate.
Finally, there is the argument that the uncodified constitution is something uniquely British and of which the
people are proud. The UK constitution is one of a kind, as there are very few countries who still have uncodified
The British constitution is uncodified. This means that it is not written in a single document. Its flexibility,
accountability and cultural legacy suggest that it should be retained, not to mention the fact that there is no great
demand for a codified constitution from the British people. However, with the potential for constitutional crises
emerging over devolution and Brexit, there is a possibility that these arguments may no longer be true and that
the codified constitution would be more effective in meeting such challenges.
One argument for remaining of the uncodified constitution is the flexibility it gives to the UK political system.
Major reforms can be carried out simply and fast, as evidenced by the introduction of the Human Rights Act
1998, which was essentially brought in by simple statute law. Another example is the Fixed Term Parliament
Act 2011, which took only 4 months to become the law. This flexibility allows the UK’s uncodified constitution
to adapt and modernise to changing demands and attitudes without major upheaval. Furthermore, devolution,
which came during Blair’s government, has also proved that the constitution is great at responding to the
changes within the country. For example, in 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Scotland Act 1998, Wales Act 1998
were all introduced in response to people’s wishes. This suggests that the flexibility offered by having an
uncodified constitution is appropriate to the British political process far more than entrenched laws and rights
provided by codified constitution. This is because it shows that in the evolving and constantly changing country,
where each year there are lots of unexpected events, for example COVID-19 pandemic, it is far more
appropriate and useful for both the government and people to be able to amend the constitution in response to
them rapidly.
However, such flexibility comes at a price. Basic human rights are not well protected in a system that offers too
much power and control to a government with a simple majority in the House of Commons. Since even the
government was able to suspend the ECHR in the Belmarsh case. The House of Lords held that the provisions
under which detainees were being held at Belmarsh prison were incompatible with Article 5 of the European
Convention of Human Rights – however the Home Secretary was not required to release the prisoners. Another
example is that in the 2017 Conservative manifesto demanded to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace
it with a British Bill of Rights. This suggests that the uncodified constitution is too flexible and is no longer
appropriate in a modern society, since it can be abused by the government, as well as lacks protection for
citizens due to the possibility of removal of any right given to them by the Parliament, since it is sovereign.
Therefore, while the flexibility of the UK constitution can be seen as appropriate in some respects, it is not
really appropriate for a modern democracy facing major constitutional issues, such as Brexit, which should
require some entrenched laws to be stated and taken into account, rather than being able to modify everything on
the go, without proper consideration. Especially, the result of Brexit is seen now, where voters are disappointed
in it, since the 3% difference in votes resulted in such a major change.
It is appropriate that an uncodified constitution ensures decisions are made by a democratically elected and
accountable parliament, not an unelected and unaccountable judiciary. This is because parliament in the UK is
sovereign and fulfils the function of the main legislative body. For example, following the Scottish
Independence referendum 2014, which showed the government and the people the need for further devolution,
Parliament has acted upon the issue and introduced Scotland Act 2016 which gave more powers to the Scottish
Parliament regarding taxation. Another example is the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information
Act 2000 which allowed people to have extended rights and be able to check on the government and officials.
This, therefore, shows that the UK uncodified constitution is still appropriate since it ensures that the people of
the country will get as much information and support as possible, as well as making sure that the parliament is
still representative of the electorate and not abusing its power. Therefore, as the functions are maintained and the
population seems to be happy with the Parliament and the laws they make, it is safe to say that the constitution
remains appropriate.
Finally, there is the argument that the uncodified constitution is something uniquely British and of which the
people are proud. The UK constitution is one of a kind, as there are very few countries who still have uncodified
