In the United Kingdom, we have a constitution that is uncodified and therefore not entrenched within our politics. Essentially, this makes it far easier to amend than a codified one and thus some groups have begun calling for such a constitution to be introduced. These groups cite the constitution in the USA, which forms the foundation of all political decisions; if a proposed law is found to go against the constitution, it is rejected. Supporters of a codified constitution for the UK say that this will give citizens inalienable rights which cannot easily be manipulated or even overturned by the government.

A constitution is based around a general consensus of what people should be able to do or not do. Constitutional agreement forms the foundations of the concept of a rule of law. In the USA, their written constitution means that the relationship between citizens and the law is clearly defined. If a constitutional law is violated, there can be no debate over it. This means that the law has more authority in the land. However, in the UK, there is not one legal standard of our constitution and thus whether or not it was violated can be questioned.

This can potentially lead to a moving of the goalposts – if the constitution is not entrenched, it is easy to change. Therefore it is impossible to hold everyone to the same standard even though the rule of law states that everyone is bound by it, because the government can essentially do what it likes in terms of manipulating or changing the constitution to fit its views. Some may argue that this makes a mockery of legal authority.

Because the terms of the UK constitution are not defined, it means that unlike the USA, we have no official separation of powers. In America both the government and those who enforce their laws are of equal standing, as outlined in their constitution; in the UK we have no such ‘official’