Should the UK develop a codified constitution? If so, why?

A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various parts of government and define the relationships between the state and individuals. Constitutions can be codified and uncodified, unitary and federal and rigid or flexible. the USA  have a codified constitution whereas the UK have an uncodified constitution.

If the UK introduced a codified constitution it would significantly affect the power of the government, the relationship between the executive and parliament, relationships between judges and politicians and also individual freedoms and rights. A codified constitution would result in making the rules of the country a lot clearer as they would all be in one single document and more clearly defined, compared to an unwritten constitution where the rules are spread across several documents. A codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of 'constitutional' rules and more faith in that they can be enforced.

Another reason the UK should develop a codified constitution is that it would create a limited government and reduce its size. A codified constitution could potentially end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the elected dictatorship. This type of dictatorship is known as a constitutional imbalance which means executive power is checked only by the need of the governments need to win elections. Within the UK, it is reflected in the ability of the government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains control of the House of Commons.

On the other hand, there are reasons why the UK should not develop this codified constitution. My first reason is that codified constitutions are seen as 'rigid'. For example, it is easier to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend a constitution. Uncodifed constitutions are seen as more flexible as they are not entrenched like codified constitutions. Codified constitutions cannot be changed quickly and easily, therefore it is more difficult to respond to political and social circumstances whatever they may be. Flexibility is seen as very important as they can be amended and modified to fit the 'ever changing' environment.

Another reason why the UK should not develop a codified constitution is that parliamentary sovereignty would basically abolished. Parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make, unmake or amend any law it wishes due to the existence of the constitution and potentially bills or rights. This is because a codified constitution would act as a form of 'higher law'. The codified constitution would undermine the idea of the UK's representative democracy.

In conclusion, I believe that the UK should not develop the codified constitution as flexibility is key and it would always be able to keep up with the changes going on and benefit the people, therefore it should remain uncodified so amendments can be made.