Does the UK need a codified constitution?

Arguments for

• There is too much power vested in the executive. A new constitutional

settlement is needed to disperse power more widely.

• There is too much power in the centre, in London.

• The prerogative powers exercised by the government on behalf of the Crown

are ill-defined and uncontrolled. Prerogative-based actions can only be
limited if the courts judge them to be excessive. Decisions such as the
declaration of war, the committal of British troops to battle, the signing of
foreign treaties and general foreign policy initiatives are all taken under
discretionary prerogative powers.

• The rights of citizens are under threat and require greater protection. The
police have been given increasing powers as crime and the threat of terrorism
have increased. The state holds a huge amount of information about
individuals. Rights in the workplace need firmer guarantees as trade unions
have become weaker.

Arguments against
• A constitution would weaken government. The British government is admired
for its ability to control the legislature, to carry out electoral mandate
without delay and to deal with unforeseen circumstances without
encountering the hindrance of too many constitutional restraints.

• The current situation is flexible and adaptable. The British constitution has
been able to adapt to circumstance.

• The judiciary would have to become more involved in resolving constitutional

disputes. Many of these concern the power of government, so are political.
Should judges be involved, given that they are neither elected nor
responsible?

• An entrenched constitution or Bill of Rights would remove the sovereignty of

Parliament. It would challenge the institutions of the monarch and
Parliament.