The case against a written constitution is that it’s gratuitous, undesirable and un- British. the actual fact that the united kingdom system of presidency has ne’er been reduced to one document is a sign of the success of the City of Westminster system of republic and therefore the stability it’s dropped at the country. this can be in distinction to most alternative countries whose written constitutions were the merchandise of revolution or independence. The unwritten nature of the constitution are some things distinctively British, it reminds USA of a good history, and may be asupply of national pride. Contrary to claims that it’s out of date, it’s organic process and versatile in nature, a lot ofsimply facultative sensible issues to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms created, than would be the case beneath AN entrenched constitutional document.
whereas some ar involved concerning the supposed existence of AN”elective dictatorship” and inadequate checks and balances within the social group, there’s if truth be told a good varyof goodly pressures exerted upon ministers seeking to create polemical changes. A written constitution would producea lot of judicial proceeding within the courts, and change the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgement on the constitutionality of presidency legislation, once the ultimate word on legal matters ought to make out nonappointivepoliticians in Parliament, not unelected judges. There ar such a lot of sensible issues inherent in making ready and enacting a written constitution, there’s very little purpose in considering the matter. As a public policy proposal it lacks of any depth of real common support and, particularly given the huge quantity of your time such a reform would entail, it’s a really low priority even for those that support the concept.
an effort to introduce one would be a distraction and would possibly well have a destabilising result on the country. The unwritten constitution permits a democratic Parliament to be the supreme determinant of law, instead of ANunelected judiciary. If the written constitution carried the next standing and priority in law, as written constitutions normally do, then the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court would be able to review the constitutionality of explicit sections in Acts of Parliament, giving judges instead of nonappointive politicians the ultimate say on what’s and what’s not the law. If a Bill of Rights were to be enclosed in a very constitution of this nature, it’d change the Supreme Court to creatively interpret and apply its human rights articles in cases brought before them in a very manner that effectively changes or creates new law, instead of departure this to Parliament.