The UK constitution is unentrenched and uncodified, meaning that it is not encapsulated within one written document and can be majorly changed through simple majorities and normal legislative processes. In contrast, the US constitution is codified and entrenched, making any changes difficult to achieve. There is a significant call to entrench and codify the British constitution, to better protect rights, provide greater accountability and increase transparency.
One argument for the need for constitutional reform is that there are elements of the British system that can be viewed as archaic and out of step with other modern democracies. This claim is starkly evident in parliament itself, in the House of Lords, where peers are appointed rather than democratically elected and some inherit their seats and titles. Here, it is clear to see that certain constitutional features may be dated.
However, unlike other modern democracies such as the US or France whose constitutions formed following revolutions, the UK constitution is old and based upon years of change and adaptation of preexisting constitution stemming all the way back to Magna Carter in 1214. Many believe that to try and codify and condense the constitution would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Critics assert that it is too easy for a government with a simple majority to make significant changes that may threaten people’s fundamental rights. A prime example of this being the current controversial ”Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts” bill, which stands accused of infringing on the right to protest. This can be seen as a flaw within the constitution as it stands.
However, would codifying the constitution fix it? Despite the threat of possible rights abuse, laws have to go through layers of political accountability in order to be passed. An example of this is the government’s recent defeat in the House of Lords as the peers vetoed some of the more controversial aspects of their “Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts” bill. They then amended the bill and took out proposals such as increased police powers to stop protests or to search protestors without just cause. This clearly shows that there is an infrastructure of political accountability in place that protects UK citizens’ rights.
Also, with a constitution not set in stone, parliament can legislate to respond flexibly to threats. This flexibility has proved fortuitous in recent times with the Covid-19 pandemic. The government was able to enact lockdown, mask wearing and mass vaccination swiftly and effectively. An entrenched and codified constitution would have meant a slower and more bureaucracy laden response, likely resulting in a greater number of deaths.
To conclude, although there may be aspects to the UK constitution that are outdated, it is the product of a long standing and ancient history that has already been adapted greatly; the threat on rights is a mainly theoretical one, as there are many political if not legal barriers to prevent laws that could harm rights being passed; codifying our constitution would ultimately restrict the unique flexibility of it.
