Pros And Cons Of A Codified Constitution

651 Words3 Pages
There are many arguments for having a codified constitution, or keeping our unwritten one. Since 1997, many constitutional reforms have been made. The difference between an uncodified and codified is that in an uncodified constitution, it is not confined to one document, but in a variety. In Britain, our constitution comes from a range of sources including common and statute law, treaties, conventions and historical documents such as the Magna Carta. However, a codified, or written, constitution is found in one document. Arguments for an uncodified constitution include flexibility and allows for an effective and responsible government. On the other hand, a codified constitution would make it easier for people to understand their civil liberties and clearly defines the separation of powers between the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature.

Constitutional reforms are becoming increasingly important in Parliament, especially after the year 1997 when Labour and Tony Blair came to
…show more content…
Our alliances with other European countries somewhat rely on Britain having similar legal proceedings. For example, trade and relations between China and the EU are quite stilted due to the very different systems used to run the country. This shows that Britain should adopt a codified constitution, so that relations between Britain and the EU do not get worse.

Another reason to have a codified constitution is that most of the work has already been completed. For example, we already have a Human Rights Act and therefore all a codified constitution would do is enshrine this in our law system.

In conclusion, whilst more reasons are coming up about why to have a codified constitution, the case for an uncodified constitution is still much stronger with many great points such as making an effective but responsible
Open Document