Constitution is “the 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 state” . 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 “The Bill of Rights”, 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Many believe that the United Kingdoms constitution is outdated with an inherent lack of overall agreement between its statutes, common laws and conventions.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 wo

The appeal of parliamentary sovereignty is less now, Written constitution would increase the sovereignty of the electorate and the judicial system and cut back also on the governments sovereignty. The government can alter an unwritten constitution very easily by simply passing an act, suggesting (in theory) a dictatorship and a lack of democracy. One of the provisions of a Written constitution on the other hand is that it can only be altered by following strict procedures. Having a written constitution would give the public and courts more power and control over the decisions made as to the running of the country. The United Kingdom is also the only member of the EU without a written constitution; this severely damages our sovereignty in Europe.

Many of the United Kingdoms people do not actually know what the constitution is. Some people probably don’t care. Referendum, Introducing the written constitution and its implementation would cost the tax payer a lot of money that could be spent else where; this is bound to anger the impartial citizen. People do not appreciate radical changes; there is a risk of people strongly opposing such a radical change as the written constitution.

Constitutional conventions are “practices relating to the exercise of their functions by the crown, the government, parliament and the judiciary” 1. Although these are commonly followed they are not legally enforceable. These therefore may be lost with time through the decisions of a future “radical” leader; this risk could be obliterated through codification by replacing conventions and consensus with contract and law in a written constitution.

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 accountable for and would specify the extent of their powers. This would prevent the government from cutting back on its accountabilities and responsibilities through the privatisation of national firms such as the transport services. It would also make any executives/private firms/quangos that have taken over national services accountable for their mistakes.

Some topics in this essay:
United Kingdoms, United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, Europe Constitutional, written constitution, Rights Act, Referendum Introducing, Magna Carta, Italy United, Bill Rights”, united kingdom, Prime Minister, united kingdoms, unwritten constitution, constitution united, written constitution united, introduction written constitution, introduction written, introducing written constitution, majority population, believe united, introducing written, judicial system, united kingdoms constitution, unwritten constitution traditional,