Ellie Holland
There is no convincing case for a written constitution in Britain. Discuss.
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles; it sets out the distribution of power within a political system. In Britain we do not have a written or uncodified constitution meaning constitutional reforms are written down but have not been gathered together. There are many arguments surrounding the British constitution and its legitimacy and whether a change in our constitution would create a positive impact or whether our current system is the best and there are no convincing arguments against it.
The fact we have parliamentary system means that there is no need for a written constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament have the highest legal authority in the UK. Because of our democratic system in the UK we have to power to elect our government and therefore this puts limits on the level of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament cannot afford to ignore the electorate’s wishes. For example the Local Government Finance Act 1988 that introduced poll tax was replaced by Parliament but only after nationwide riots and demonstrations. However with a written constitution it is close to impossible to change anything. To say that there are no convincing arguments surrounding change in Britain’s constitution may be seen as an over statement as a written, codified constitutions do carry some advantages. It hugely reduces the risk of an elective dictatorship because there is separation of powers. It was also mean that the people in power have some boundaries in law making as the written constitution would become the arguably fair foundations for any law to be built on. For example when Blair was in power he removed one session of Prime Ministers question time without consultation or changed composition of Lords. Blair also brought about the Iraq war in 2003 through