In your opinion should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why?

The UK's constitution is currently uncodified which means it is written in different sources and is easily amended because it is not entrenched. The constitution is also unitary as it lies in one place which is why Britain has a single tier legal system with no form of higher laws; just Parliamentary sovereignty. The constitution is not judicial meaning that no political bodies can declare whether certain actions are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Whereas codified constitutions', such as the US constitution, features are opposite to the UK's constitution: they are written in one single document, so they can be entrenched, and they are usually federal constitutions which allows the state to have a two tier legal system: constitutional laws (being the highest laws) and then common laws. Uncodified constitutions are also judicial which means that all political bodies are subject to the authority of the courts and supreme courts.

Changing the UK's constitution from uncodified to codified would create stronger safeguards needed for individual and minority rights. Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights, but they can be overridden by Parliament as they have the right to do whatever it wants. The Liberals argue that the executive power of the government is excessive in the UK because it threatens individual rights, minorities and influence of public opinion; having a codified constitution would enable Parliament to control the government on behalf of the people. It would also increase public awareness and support as British citizens don't fully understand the concept of a constitution, so changing it would allow citizens to understand our relationship with the EU and would make the UK a modern democracy.

Although I agree with these advantages of codified constitution, I believe that the UK's constitution should remain uncodified, however, because it can be easily adapted to the changing world without confusion, in a short amount of time. This can be done by Parliament simply passing a new Act, or developing new unwritten conventions. For example, this comes to an advantage in times of emergency, such as the 9/11 terrorist attack, when Britain had to pass a wide range of anti-terrorist measures. If Britain's constitution was codified and entrenched, it would have been extremely difficult and long to pass these measures. Although uncodified constitutions allow the government to be more powerful, which can be a disadvantage to the people, but it makes sure that the government are not prevented from acting against the constitution. In addition, the UK's uncodified constitution has served Britain well for centuries because there have been no violent revolutions or major political unrest, therefore there is no need to change it. Adopting a codified constitution would involve the supreme court and would become judicial. This means that unelected judges would interpret, re-interpret and resolve political issues of the constitution, so they would not be accountable; such decisions should be resolved by an elected Parliament, which would improve the UK's democracy.