‘The case for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong’ – Discuss
The British constitution itself is flexible as it allows the constitutions to evolve and generally adapt to the changing society. Compared to the US whose constitution is described as ‘rigid’; through the struggle of being able to amend constitutions; for example, the ‘right to bear arms’ amendment, which basically gives registered citizens the right to keep and bear arms (weapons). The topic of amending this constitution is very controversial, however due to the constitution being codified the process is very difficult, as is it entrenched and has been a part of the US culture for centuries. The flexibility of the British constitution is also shown through the constitutional reforms developed by Labour, which not only modernised by also is argued to have strengthened the British constitution. Due to this ability of being flexible and being able to change and adapt, the case for Britain retaining its constitution is in fact ‘extremely strong’. In this essay, I will be analysing the strengths of the British constitution and comparing it to a codified constitution, I will also discuss its weaknesses and whether ‘extremely strong’ is an exaggeration and it lacks the qualities of a reliable constitution.
During 1997, the Labour party developed a series of manifesto’s stating constitutional reforms which later on came into effect in 2005. They believed the British politics needed to be modernised and brought up to date. Labour also believed that the citizens lacked protections towards their human rights due to the unentrenched uncodified constitution. Lastly, Labour argued the executive to have too much power, with a weak legislature to restrain this power. In 1997, Labour was successful as they won a landslide victory and created a majority government. Many may argue they were successful through the modernisation process, this is shown through the separation of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document