Advantages and disadvantages of the UK having a codified constitution .
Opportunity to update governing arrangements; Consensus that it works:
Currently, the UK constitution does not conform to the On the other hand, there is general consensus that the
modern democratic world and some may argue that certain current constitution works and has worked for many years
conventions and elements of common law are outdated and and there is just no need to change it, this can be seen with
undemocratic e.g. the existence of the House of Lords and the the general public and the government. Furthermore,
Monarchy. However, by introducing a codified constitution, it another conservative view is that the UK constitution is
will allow for the governing systems/ arrangements to be organic and can evolve over time to keep up with changes in
looked at and reconsidered and therefore the codified modern society and therefore a codified one would be
constitution will be up to date with modern democracies all unnecessary.
around the world.
Provide clarity and understanding: Difficult to decide content:
It is argued that the current UK uncodified constitution lacks A disadvantage of introducing a codified constitution in the UK
clarity, which makes it difficult for citizens to know whether the is to decide what will go in it and who will write it. The UK’s
government has acted unconstitutionally. Whereas, introducing constitution is made up of man different sources e.g.
a codified constitution will allow for more clarity as all the conventions and authoritative works (Walter Bagehot 1867)
government arrangements will be set out on a document which etc. this therefore would make it difficult to produce and
can be accessed by any citizen and this will allow them to be would be extremely time consuming.
able to hold the government to account if they did act
unconstitutionally. Furthermore, citizens will be able to fully
understand the extent of their civil rights and liberties e.g. in the
USA, it is possible for anyone to but the constitution which
clearly sets out the rights and freedoms of every citizen. It will become rigid:
A codified constitution, by becoming entrenched, may
become too rigid. This limits the flexibility of the laws that
exist in an uncodified constitution, which allows room for
easy changes which is incredibly important for the
Entrench the constitution: constitution to remain relevant and up-to-date in an ‘ever-
Introducing a codified constitution will make it a lot more changing’ environment. e.g. over time there has been
difficult for the executive to change laws under the constitution. adaptations to human rights laws to encompass all races,
This would prevent liberties and rights from being infringed as genders and sexualities.
well as preventing the executive from removing important
changes to the political system e.g. devolution of power.
The Human Rights Act has already strengthened rights;
The Human Rights Act (1998) allows the Supreme Court to issue a
“declaration of incompatibility” when laws undermine human rights.
Strengthen protection of rights: Parliamentary sovereignty means that it is then up to Parliament to
By introducing a codified constitution in the UK, this gives decide how to respond. However, past experience has shown that,
citizens a wider knowledge of their rights which means they can politically, it is not easy to ignore these declarations, and Parliament
fight for them effectively. Furthermore, it allows for judges to has tended to swiftly approve whatever changes are necessary to
effectively protect the rights of citizens as the details are clearly make the law compatible. Therefore, while the UK lacks fundamental
written down in the constitution. This would prevent bias laws, the courts can use the list of rights contained in the ECHR to
because the idea of a codified constitution would lead it to challenge legislation. UK Ministers must submit a ‘statement of
become the highest form of law, and cannot be undermined by compatibility’, explaining how their bill is compatible the ECHR.
other legislation e.g. initially with the terrorism act 2006, the Although these statements are not legally binding, it still suggests that
government had asked for a 90-day period of detention for Parliament is behaving as if the HRA is fundamental law, even if legally
suspected terrorists without charge. it is the same as any other.
Excessive executive power: Undermining parliamentary sovereignty;
Introducing a codified constitution would prevent the excessive The principal of parliamentary sovereignty is that parliament
domination of executive power. This is because the entrenched can make or unmake any law without binding their
nature will limit the powers of the executive and prevent them successors. By implementing a codified constitution, it will
from undermining the rule of law, and introducing laws that prevent parliament from making or unmaking any laws as it
weaken that go against other institutions and go against the will would act as a form of higher law and would bind later
of the people e.g. Tony Blair went against the will of the people governments, and limit their power.
by going to war with Iraq.
Opportunity to update governing arrangements; Consensus that it works:
Currently, the UK constitution does not conform to the On the other hand, there is general consensus that the
modern democratic world and some may argue that certain current constitution works and has worked for many years
conventions and elements of common law are outdated and and there is just no need to change it, this can be seen with
undemocratic e.g. the existence of the House of Lords and the the general public and the government. Furthermore,
Monarchy. However, by introducing a codified constitution, it another conservative view is that the UK constitution is
will allow for the governing systems/ arrangements to be organic and can evolve over time to keep up with changes in
looked at and reconsidered and therefore the codified modern society and therefore a codified one would be
constitution will be up to date with modern democracies all unnecessary.
around the world.
Provide clarity and understanding: Difficult to decide content:
It is argued that the current UK uncodified constitution lacks A disadvantage of introducing a codified constitution in the UK
clarity, which makes it difficult for citizens to know whether the is to decide what will go in it and who will write it. The UK’s
government has acted unconstitutionally. Whereas, introducing constitution is made up of man different sources e.g.
a codified constitution will allow for more clarity as all the conventions and authoritative works (Walter Bagehot 1867)
government arrangements will be set out on a document which etc. this therefore would make it difficult to produce and
can be accessed by any citizen and this will allow them to be would be extremely time consuming.
able to hold the government to account if they did act
unconstitutionally. Furthermore, citizens will be able to fully
understand the extent of their civil rights and liberties e.g. in the
USA, it is possible for anyone to but the constitution which
clearly sets out the rights and freedoms of every citizen. It will become rigid:
A codified constitution, by becoming entrenched, may
become too rigid. This limits the flexibility of the laws that
exist in an uncodified constitution, which allows room for
easy changes which is incredibly important for the
Entrench the constitution: constitution to remain relevant and up-to-date in an ‘ever-
Introducing a codified constitution will make it a lot more changing’ environment. e.g. over time there has been
difficult for the executive to change laws under the constitution. adaptations to human rights laws to encompass all races,
This would prevent liberties and rights from being infringed as genders and sexualities.
well as preventing the executive from removing important
changes to the political system e.g. devolution of power.
The Human Rights Act has already strengthened rights;
The Human Rights Act (1998) allows the Supreme Court to issue a
“declaration of incompatibility” when laws undermine human rights.
Strengthen protection of rights: Parliamentary sovereignty means that it is then up to Parliament to
By introducing a codified constitution in the UK, this gives decide how to respond. However, past experience has shown that,
citizens a wider knowledge of their rights which means they can politically, it is not easy to ignore these declarations, and Parliament
fight for them effectively. Furthermore, it allows for judges to has tended to swiftly approve whatever changes are necessary to
effectively protect the rights of citizens as the details are clearly make the law compatible. Therefore, while the UK lacks fundamental
written down in the constitution. This would prevent bias laws, the courts can use the list of rights contained in the ECHR to
because the idea of a codified constitution would lead it to challenge legislation. UK Ministers must submit a ‘statement of
become the highest form of law, and cannot be undermined by compatibility’, explaining how their bill is compatible the ECHR.
other legislation e.g. initially with the terrorism act 2006, the Although these statements are not legally binding, it still suggests that
government had asked for a 90-day period of detention for Parliament is behaving as if the HRA is fundamental law, even if legally
suspected terrorists without charge. it is the same as any other.
Excessive executive power: Undermining parliamentary sovereignty;
Introducing a codified constitution would prevent the excessive The principal of parliamentary sovereignty is that parliament
domination of executive power. This is because the entrenched can make or unmake any law without binding their
nature will limit the powers of the executive and prevent them successors. By implementing a codified constitution, it will
from undermining the rule of law, and introducing laws that prevent parliament from making or unmaking any laws as it
weaken that go against other institutions and go against the will would act as a form of higher law and would bind later
of the people e.g. Tony Blair went against the will of the people governments, and limit their power.
by going to war with Iraq.
