Codification Debate

• Flexibility (arguments against codification)

  • Uncodified constitution can respond to an ever-changing world and society.
  • Change can be enacted relatively quickly.
  • Gradual process of increased prime ministerial power.
  • Easier post-9/11 to pass anti-terrorism legislation.
  • Flexible to deal with coalition and minority governments in the event of no majority.
• Executive Power (arguments against codification)

  • Strong government without the constraints of codification can lead the nation in times of crisis.
  • In the UK; the flexible relationship between Parliament and the Government can change depending on the situation.
• Dangers of politicising the judiciary (arguments against codification)

  • Codification involves the courts, including the Supreme Court in particular.
  • There would be constant conflicts over the nature of rights and relationships between Parliament, Government, Devolved Nations and others.
  • Risks politicising judicial nominations.
  • Argument that unelected judges should not have an extreme level of power over the elected branches.
• Human Rights (arguments in favour of codification)

  • Could provide stronger safeguards for human rights and civil liberties.
  • Parliament is sovereign and can repeal any human rights legislation, such as the Conservative Government offering a British Bill of Rights.
  • However; Human Rights Act 1998 proves that this is not the case; Parliament and Judiciary are very much rights-based and would oppose any efforts to attack civil liberties; if citizens approve of Government at an election, then it can be argued that violation of civil liberties is acceptable - such as Terrorism Act 2006.
• Executive Power (in favour of codification)

  • Over-powerful government threatens individual rights, minorities, and the influence of public opinion.
  • There would be clear 'checks and balances' on the executive.
  • However; 2010s have seen coalition and minority governments increase the power of Parliament over Government; also argued that if voters give a government a majority, they are representing the will of the people for the executive to have more power.