STUDENT SAMPLE:

Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK.

There are many arguments as to why the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK is not appropriate, from the conservative argument of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, to the practical difficulties of the transition from uncodified to codified, and finally the serious concerns about the disadvantages of codified constitutions in general.

The UK’s uncodified constitution has served us well for centuries, and as of yet, there is no constitutional crisis that has created the need for change. Constitutional Conservatives argue that constitutional reform has destabilized the UK. Centuries of tradition have been tampered with in an incoherent way often doing more harm than good. These changes may, for constitutional conservatives, have gone too far by threatening the traditional sovereignty of parliament. They also point out that any attempt to democratise the Lords would drain power away from the Commons.

In addition to this, It would be extremely difficult and take a long time to establish constitutional rules, with doubts over whether a clear consensus of what features, concepts, checks, balances and processes should be included. The recent experience of coalition government proves that constitutional reform is notoriously difficult to achieve even on a case by case basis. AV was decisively rejected in the May 2011 referendum and House of Lords reform has stalled. Even if agreement were reached to create a codified constitution there would never be any agreement on the provisions.

Even if a consensus could be reach and a codified constitution creation, this would take away one of the great strengths of our current constitution – it’s flexibility. This would mean the we would be unable to respond quickly and effectively to change. Uncodified constitutions possess an inherent advantage. They are quick to adapt to changing circumstances. The US constitution by contrast has only ever had 27 amendments in more than 200 years. It is very difficult to change and is one of the reasons behind the difficulties in passing gun control laws.

Conservatives also argue that our constitution is organic and should not be an artificial creation – it should continue to develop naturally, it has worked in the past and therefore should continue to work in the future. Change should only arise out of necessity. Nothing should be reformed merely for the sake of reform. It is something that has stood the test of time and that of itself is a sign of its utility.

A codified constitution would put too much power in the hand of the unelected Judiciary and this is undesirable. Objections to this are based on the idea that parliament is and remains sovereign. Any attempt to codify the UK constitution would relegate elected politicians below the level of unelected judges, as they would be responsible for interpreting laws passed by parliament as “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” – effectively giving them power to strike down the laws of parliament – similar to the powers of the US Supreme Court.

One of the accusations against an uncodified constitution is usually that they are inadequate in protecting the rights of citizens. However in the UK this is absolutely not the case – parliament is perfectly able to protect rights through the traditional principles (i.e. the rule of law) even before the Human Rights Act (1998) was passed.

There is also an argument to be made that many constitutional reforms such as devolution and House of Lords reform are somewhat “in flux” and have often provided more problems than solutions. To create a codified constitution containing these would therefore be a grave error as it would ‘cement’ or ‘entrench’ these damaging developments. Attempts at codification should therefore to be resisted at all costs.