“Britain should adopt a codified constitution”, Discuss. (40 mark)

Intro
A constitution is a set of rules/principles, which aim to set the duties and powers of government. There are two different types of constitutions, codified (written) and uncodified (unwritten), which the UK is an example of an uncodified and the U.S.A a codified.

Codified and Uncodified Constitutions
An uncodified constitution is a constitution made from principles that are not formatted into one single document and unlike codified is not authoritative and also not entrenched. A codified constitution is where the principles or rules are collected within a single document. Codified constitutions have three key features, the first is that the document itself is authoritative in the sense it constitutes a ‘higher’ form of law. The other key feature is that It binds all political institutions. And the final key feature is that they are said to be entrenched which means they are difficult to abolish or amend.

UK for a Codified Constitution
Some people argue that if the UK adopted a codified constitution is a good thing. If it was to be adopted it would significantly change the UK because it would affect: the power of the government and people’s rights and freedom.
One of the biggest arguments for adopting a codified constitution is the fact it would make all rules/principles a lot clearer as they would all be in 1 single document and more clearly written meaning it would create less confusion about the constitutional rules. A codified constitution would also make the overall goals of the political system stand out more to the public eye and anyone else, strengthening the country. It was also cut the government massively by ending parliamentary sovereignty. And it would also not be possible for the government to interfere with the constitution due to higher law that safeguards the constitution. And of course the strongest argument it that it would protect human rights by making the current rights of the people to be stated with more clarity and that it cannot be changed with as much easy or ‘put to one side’ in order for the government to achieve other means.

UK against an Uncodified Constitution
Codified constitutions are rigid, this makes it extremely difficult to change compared to the current uncodified constitution as it is quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament that it is to amend a constitution thus meaning it is hard for it to stay up-to-date with the ever changing society which is the biggest downfall of a codified constitution. The UK has also been an uncodified constitution for a long amount of time where it has been able to change and adapt to the needs of the people to further improve day to day life, no revolutions have occurred against parliament in a lengthy period of time so it goes to show the majority of the UK is satisfied with the current uncodified constitution so why change it?

Conclusion
I find although there are many valid points to why the UK should both adopt and not adopt a codified constitution the argument for keeping the UK’s constitution uncodified over powers the other arguments because it wouldn’t be in the public interest and make it harder to adapt to the constantly changing society the thrives in the UK.