â€œDear Mr. Prime Minister, here is the report you requested on the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution for the United Kingdom with my conclusionsâ€
Constitution is â€œthe rules and practices that determine the composition and functions of of the organs of central and local government in a state and regulate their relationship between the individual and the stateâ€ . A written constitution is merely the above rules and practices formulated into a single document. The United Kingdoms constitution is largely unwritten, consisting of statutes (these however are written), common law rules and constitutional conventions.
The United States adhere to what is called â€œThe Bill of Rightsâ€, the equivalent of a written constitution. There must therefore be both advantages and disadvantages to having a written constitution over an unwritten constitution; I will now attempt to highlight these.
Many believe that the United Kingdoms constitution is outdated with an inherent lack of overall agreement between its statutes, common laws and conventions. The constitution is meant to be the main backbone on which power, control, order and authority are built upon any maintained by. Having a written constitution would guarantee an uncompromising method of protecting individuals and the general public from the executive. It would also allow the power of the government to be spread more evenly over the whole system ensuring its more efficient and improved operation (ex-prime minister Margaret Thatcher agreed with this). This would be very beneficial as at the moment many citizens are unhappy with the way that the government is operation and believe that there is a lack of attention to some of the less important aspects of the structure.
The written constitution would make clear what the state and its agencies can and cannot do, what their responsibilities are, what they will be held accounta