In the eyes of many the un-codified nature of the UK constitution is a major drawback in our democracy. Although it being un-codified and un-entrenched does allow for easy changes where needed, it also allows the executive the alter the UK’s constitution, and heritage, with great ease. This could be highly detrimental to the UK’s democratic status. Above all a codified constitution is seen as a simple modern way of allowing the people of a nation to feel safe under a clear set of rules and regulations, and well as giving the government a clear governing strategy to follow.
The majority of modern countries with constitutions nowadays have codified ones. This has the benefit of allowing the people of that country to feel safe and secure under a definitive list of regulations and rules for them, their government and the judiciary system to follow. In countries, such as the USA, the constitution is referred to when the people feel that they, as citizens bound by that particular countries law, are being affected by an infringement of their rights. An example of this is the protest shown by the American people after the mass shooting is the USA. A reform to ban weapons amongst the people was proposed. The American citizens were able to refer the US government to their constitution, in which it stated that citizens had the right to bare arms. This is something that would be almost impossible to do in the UK as our constitution is not codified, and therefore is very difficult to refer to.
Although a Human Rights Act was introduced into the UK through the EU, the rights of the UK citizens are not completely protected as our rights lack entrenchment, and cannot be clearly found within a codified constitution. Codification of a constitution, including a bill of rights, would help to protect the people against an overly powerful government. The fact that civil liberties receive little protection was illustrated in...