Does Britain need a codified constitution?

Question

in what way would it change laws and what are the advantages and disadvantages to having an uncodified constitution.

Answer 1

I think they already have one in Hull.

Answer 2

Britain seems to have been getting along fairly well without one. The advantages of having a codified constitution are mostly that anyone can look up something and see what it says: in short, the rules are in black and white and anyone can understand what they are. The disadvantage of trying to get to a codified constitution is that it would be difficult to put all of the details of the system into written language and get it right. British constitutional law has a long history; which of the precedents should be explicitly codified, and which may remain as tacit assumptions? In the US, the Constitution consists not of just the original document and a couple of dozen amendments -- it also consists of a solid wall of books of Supreme Court decisions over the past 200 years.

Answer 3

All constitutional matters are covered by acts of Parliament, some of them very old, by ancient rights and precedents. We have never needed such a document before. It was accepting the ridiculous 'Human Rights Act' that has created most of our current problems. We had the most developed legal system in the world before we got involved with the EU. Also, it would have been unthinkable for a government to challenge the very existence of Britain in the way that our current government has.

The main advantage of English law was, that it allowed you to do anything save that which the law specifically stated that you couldn't do. The ridiculous HRA doesn't allow you to do anything unless it is specifically stated in the HRA. Framing law in this way forces legislators to create law in fairly broad terms, thereby passing power away from politicians to the courts to interpret it. It is clearly ridiculous to try and set down everything that you can do. That is why, in Britain, we have people claiming all sorts of things as a human right. As long as we are involved with the EU a British constitutional document would be irrelevant because it would be trumped by the HRA.

Answer 4

A codified constitution is three hundred years over due ,a written constitution would include a bill of rights ,end discrimination i.e. the right of succession and make British laws paramount once more with European laws becoming discretional . This would also allow Britain to forward plan without interferance from Europe vis a vis agriculture fishing education industrial planning power generation and let us determine what we do with national resources.Without a written constitution we are subject to the vaaries of the party in power and its abuses of its majority just like Thatcher and Blair ignored the views of the electorate.

Answer 5

I don't know? We had two written consitutions under Oliver Cromwell during the 1650's. 'The Istrument of Government' and the 'Humble Petition and Advice'. Both were very clever the former is similar to the american consitution, three seprate parts of government with rules governing the relationship between each.

But they were OK, but have not left a lasting impression on British culture.

I think we are OK as we are to be honest. One complication would be the difference in law. Scotland has its own law system, diffirent from England. To be honest I don't know how it would work.

But I think we should reintroduce one aspect of the consitutions under Cromwell. Limits on the spending on the soverign's household. cromwell was given 3,000 pounds to run his court, palaces, diplomats, council, intellegence system, gifts to charity or as a patron, transport.

If he went over the limit, he had to raise the money himself. He could not gain through taxes or gifts from parliment. The Royal family, esp. cause of recent controversey about transport bills, should live by this system and still pay tax.

Answer 6

If the form facilitates a Monarch as head of state, then there will be a Monarchy. it is as much as the country to regardless of if that takes place or no longer. Australia has a shape that needless to say outlines the situation and purpose that the Monarchy performs in the Australian federation. formally its form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy, that's a democracy with the Queen as head of state (or her representative). it quite is probable what could ensue if Britain took on a written shape. little or no could replace.

Answer 7

one of the major disadvantages to a codefied constitution is that once it is written, it's difficult to change. The UK is fortunate in that there is flexibility in its constitutional structure which, for example, the USA does not have.

Answer 8

Traditionally we have resisted a constitution, since this would negate the legal requirement for monarchy. As soon as we get one, we might take the queen out of the rubber stamping our laws equation.