Pros And Cons Of The Uncodified Constitution

Should the UK constitution remain uncodified?

There are many arguments for and against codifying the UK’s constitution. Arguments in favour of codification include: the increased stability this would bring to the constitution; it would bring an end to the possibility of ‘elected dictatorships’; citizens’ rights would be more effectively protected and the constitution would be judicable, allowing its provisions to be protected by neutral judges. On the other hand, there are counter arguments such as the benefits of the flexibility the uncodified nature of the constitution currently provides; codifying the constitution would limit the power of the government which would not allow it to be very strong; judges are not elected and as such their …show more content…
This is because Parliamentary sovereignty is essentially sovereignty of the government because the government controls Parliament. This is known as an ‘elective dictatorship’, a term coined by Lord Hailsham. This is linked to the ease with which the constitution can be altered, as most of the codified parts of the constitution are Acts of Parliament, once a government has been elected they have the freedom to repeal any and all Acts which are of constitutional importance. Additionally, the Salisbury Convention, which stops the House of Lords from stopping legislation that was in the government’s manifesto, only gives more power to the House of Commons. Some argue that this power is a good thing as it allows the government to deal with problems with very little being able to stop it, which is better than in the USA where the constitution often prevents Congress and the government from acting decisively. On balance, this does not provide a reasonable opposition to codification because the constitution would only prevent the government from taking action that is not in the best interest of the citizens and