Should Britain Retain Its Uncodified Constiution

The case for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong.
On the one hand it can be argued that Britain should not retain its uncodified constitution because it makes us unusual as only the UK, Israel and New Zealand do not have one. On the other hand it can be argued that Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because of the flexibility of our constitution which would be lost if our constitution was codified. Overall, it can be argued here that the argument for Britain retaining its uncodified has two very strong sides that both have good reasons for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution and not retaining it.
Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because the flexibility of the UKs constitution is a great asset that would be lost if we introduced a codified constitution. We have no fundamental/entrenched law that legislation must be compatible with which gives Parliament great flexibility to pass all legislation that is needed to meet current problems.   However, this flexibility means that our rights are less well protected for example the gun owners in America have had their rights much better served by the codified constitution that they have than the UK gun owners who suddenly found their weapons banned by the law. Therefore, it is argued that Britain should retain uncodified constitution because of its flexibility.
Another reason why Britain should also retain uncodified constitution because a codified one would lead to judicial activism. Unelected judges should be kept out of the political arena. It is impossible for judges to not allow their own personal beliefs to shape their decisions. Strengthening the judiciary with a codified constitution would lead to judicial activism where the courts use constitution to promote their own beliefs. However, past cases of judicial review have shown the importance of judges being able to hold politicians to account. The Human Right Act already gives judges the...