A written constitution acts as a concrete form of check and balance.

In your opinion, should the UK adopt for itself a written constitution?

This essay will attempt to analyse theoretical and practical arguments for
and against codifying the UKs constitutional arrangements. A constitution is a
set of rules which regulates the balance of powers in a country between the
Judiciary, Executive, Legislature and a citizen. According to Colin Munro, a
constitution refers to the body of rules and arrangements concerning the
government of the country. Constitutions can be divided using various criteria
e.g. codified and uncodified, written and unwritten, and entrenched and not
entrenched. The majority of constitutions are codified and entrenched.
The UK has a distinctive feature of having an unwritten constitution.
Unlike constitutions of most nations, such as Malaysia they have a written
constitutional law which is Federal Constitution., but British constitution is
uncodified and cannot be bound in a singular document. However, British
constitutional can be found in differences several of sources and the statutory
sources of constitutional have developed through the centuries and its history
can be seen in the Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Rights 1628 and the Bills of
Rights 1689. Most recently examples are the Human Rights Act 1998, which has
incorporated right under European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into
domestic law, and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which provides for the
establishment of the Supreme Court. Judicial decision also included in the
Constitution. Not only had the UK adopted unwritten constitution and also New
Zealand and Israel.
Besides being unwritten constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty is
observed in the British constitution as Parliament is the omnipotent law making
body in the State. The British constitution is also unitary in structure, where the
Parliament in Westminster has the ultimate law making power over all the
constituent nations in UK. Furthermore, the most important characteristic of the
UK constitution is that it represented the height of flexibility. For United State, its
required whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it while the UK just need
one thirds to agree the amendment. Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend
the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 but only 27 of
them are successful amended.
There are many arguments that argue British constructional should codify
the constitutional law. It appears that the biggest problem with not codifying a
constitution is that it cannot be pointed at, and named as, a closed list of rules
which govern a state as the a written Constitution would serve as a check and
balance mechanism over the potential arbitrariness by the Parliament The
Human Rights Act 1998 can be said that only offers nominal protection of human
right and certainly not on the scale envisaged of the written constitution. This is
because the supremacy of Parliament, the HRA 1998 is not immune to express
repeal. According to Lord Woolf, he has argue that if Parliament did unthinkable
and legislated regardless with the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of
law, the court might wish to make it clear that ultimately there are even limits

on the supremacy of Parliament which it is the Courts, inalienable responsibility

to identity and uphold. Absent a written constitution, there are no legally
enforceable constitutional limits which bind this elective dictatorship
Another problem is that the United Kingdoms constitution is liquid in a
sense that it is not entrenched nor any special procedure must be followed in
order to change it. Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the principle of
Parliamentary supremacy means that the United Kingdoms constitution can
change continually, and that it is better to say that the United Kingdom has no
constitution at all . The lack of entrenchment in the UK firmly contrasts with
other states approach where a specific, usually onerous, procedure must be
followed before constitution can be changed. The absolute lack of entrenchment
however has recently been affected by judgment in Thoburn. Laws LJ introduced
a doctrine of mandatory express repeal whereby a constitutional statue can only
be repealed explicitly, by the most express words, and not by implication. This
seemingly simple idea of gradual constitutional change is complicated by the
fact that in order to explicitly repeal an Act, the Parliament must recognise it as a
constitutional one.
Moreover, a written constitution would provided clear and certainty direct
to all people. Codified constitution make it an easier to educate citizens as to
rights as we need only to point to a singular text. This present task of having to
peruse through the jungle of legislation is no small feat for an ordinary person.
Besides, it also earlier for the judges to refer as it only refers to a single
reference not a difference variety of books. The strongest argument is that a
codified constitution would protect rights. The individual liberty would be secure
because the codified constitution would define clearly the relationship between
the state and the citizens and they would be more easier to enforce.
It is commonly said that if it isnt broken, dont fix it and it is difficult to
disagree with this argument. The United Kingdom has been developing in a
peaceful manner without almost any significant internal unrest. The historical
reason for the absence of a written constitution is that Britain has never been the
subject of alien rule in 1066. As can be seen form most Commonwealth
countries a written constitution is the legacy of foreign rule such as Malaysia
Federal Constitution, the South Africa Act 1867, or the legacy of the successful
resolution or even being superimposed upon a nation which has lost in war such
as Japans pacifist constitution. Notwithstanding two World Wars, Britain has
been stable and has had a responsible government. By and large, constitutional
law have been abided by. William Hague once said that there is no need for a
written constitution as we already have internal stability and accountability.
Besides, an unwritten constitution also many benefit. Those who argued
that British should adopt codified constitution fail to realise that it would be a
tedious process which would take up a lot of time and money. If Constitution
Commission were to be employed to do the detailed work on a possible draft,
involving the appointment of an independence body, consulting widely, the use

of expert committees, publication of consultation documents and consequences

referendums, then millions pounds would be needed.
Moreover, the nature of the unwritten constitution is flexible. If a
constitution is supreme then it naturally follows that is less flexible and more
difficult to change. It takes more time and effort to amend in response to urgent
events. Uncodified constitution can be changed quickly when necessary. Benefits
of uncodified constitution could be clearly seen in the aftermath of the
Hungerford massacre in 1987 and Dunblane massacre in 1996. In both
cases the Parliament passed acts which either restricted or almost completely
banned possession of firearms in the UK. It is completely unrealistic to think that
the US entrenched constitution could be amended in such a swift and efficient
manner.
Besides, a written constitution would inevitably to draw the judiciary in to
the political arena as the nature of the written constitution would make the judge
can check the legislature and executive on important matters. By doing so,
judges are acting as unelected legislators. This would be affront to democracy.
It would be undemocratic for unelected judges who are not accountable to the
electorate at the ballot box to be overturning the decision of democratically
elected representatives of people. It can be said that impinge on the separation
of powers and create significant tensions between legislative and judiciary.
Furthermore, a written constitution will be enveloped a wide variety of
customary rules and practices such as numerous Acts, judgments, conventions
and prerogatives. As Foley said, all constitutions leave important things unsaid.
These rules and practices are more often than not mere easily changed than the
constitution itself and this quality of theirs renders formal amendment of the
constitution unnecessary while at the same time bringing it up-to-date. The
codified of the constitution would freeze these rules and practice. If the minister
responsible with is a constitutional convention be codify then all minister must
resign for their unthinkable.
In conclusion, as per Hilaire Barnett,the constitution is living in dynamic
organism which at any point in time will reflect the moral and political values of
the people it governs. Some argue that the UK needs to adopt the written
nature of constitution law to ensure the certainty of the law and to protect itself
from governing influence of the European Union. However, given the above, it
appears that there is no need to make a fundamental change to the system
which has been working successfully for over 300 years. The fact that the
majority of countries have a written constitution is not an indication that UK
should follow the same path. UK should adopt the flexible and Parliament
Supremacy rather than rigid, slow development method. Ultimately, it is the
flexibility of the unwritten constitution that has allowed changed to be made with
ease and has ensured the growth of the constitution through the passing years.
Furthermore, It is commonly said that if it isnt broken, dont fix it and UK had
made some reform for the fundamental right The Succession to the Crown Act
2013, the Constitution Reform Act 2005 draw a line between the House of Lord

and legislative. Besides, the The Fixed- Term Parliament Act 2011 bring fixed
term five year Parliament and placed the dissolution of the Parliament into
statutory basic. It is clear that UKs organisations are very responsible, and those
fundamental right are protected by UK constitution law.

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/codifying-the-ukconstitutional-arrangements-constitutional-law-essay.php