UK Constitution Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is a constitution?
A constitution is a body of laws, rules, and practices that establish the extent of government authority, the rights of citizens, and the relationships between branches of government. It serves as a defence against abuses of power and ensures government accountability through checks and balances.
What are the key principle of the UK constitution?
Uncodified: Not written in a single, formal, centralized document but derived from various sources.
Unentrenched: Constitutional changes can be made through an Act of Parliament, amending or repealing statute law without complicated procedures (needs a Commons majority)
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament is the supreme authority, and its legislation cannot be overturned by any higher authority. The Supreme Court can only rule
Parliament’s actions as unlawful (ultra vires), meaning beyond their powers, but not unconstitutional. No Parliament can bind its successors.
Rule of Law: The same laws apply equally to every citizen and the government; no one is above the law.
Unitary Constitution: Power is centralized in Westminster. Parliament has ultimate sovereignty and can overrule Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.
Constitutional Monarchy: The monarch exercises authority according to a constitution, acting as a symbolic head of state with mainly ceremonial roles.
Royal Prerogative: Traditional powers and privileges exercised by government ministers on behalf of the monarch that does not require parliamentary approval, but can be constrained by legislation or parliamentary oversight.
What are the sources of the UK constitution?
Statute Law
Common/Case Law
Conventions
Authoritative Works
Treaties
What is statute law and examples?
An act passed by Parliament of constitutional significance (affects the rights of citizens, the powers of the government, and the relationships between branches). It holds the greatest authority out of all the sources.
Examples:
* Magna Carta 1215 (limited the power of the monarchy, established legal rights such as the right to a fair trial)
* Representation of the
People Act/Reform Acts
* HRA
What is common law?
Judgments made by judges in important legal cases that set significant legal precedents
for future cases, especially those relating to the constitution.
Example: Entick v Carrington established protection of individual liberty from
arbitrary government action.
What are conventions and examples?
Traditional political practices and unwritten rules that are not necessarily legally binding.
Examples:
Salisbury convention: The Lords do not block legislation from an elected governments manifesto
Sewell convention: Westminster does not legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the devolved regions, tested by Brexit.
Military action: PM must seek Parliamentary approval before engaging in military action, set by Brown, overruled by Cameron in Syria.
Works of Authority
Texts of profound political significance that are recognized as part of the UK’s constitution.
Example: Bagehot’s The English Constitution set out the roles of cabinet
ministers and the Prime Minister, “first among equals”
ETVT the UK’s uncodified constitution should be codified (arguments are in reverse, need to amend).
- Flexibility: The constitution can swiftly evolve to changing socio-political circumstances by simply creating, amending, or repealing an act, requiring only a parliamentary majority. ie Johnson rapidly repealed the FTPA as it interfered with the Brexit process.
- Flexibility: This ease can be abused by governments due to a lack of
constitutional safeguards restricting parliamentary sovereignty. This could lead to
ill-conceived changes without proper oversight. There isn’t a legal statute that binds successors from reversing the actions of previous governments, therefore facilitating an elective dictatorship. ie the repercussions of a no-deal Brexit were not properly thought out. - Uncodified has allowed the pragmatic development of the constitution, any “arbitrary changes” are accountable to the people who can revoke their mandate, and be repealed by the next government. Political repercussions exist if MPs do not act as expected, as voters can elect them out in the next election.
- Rights and Liberties: Civil liberties have largely been upheld through HRA, Equality Act and SC, and the uncodified constitution has facilitated the evolution of human rights. It has been able to adapt to the greater recognition of human rights and civil liberties compared to an entrenched constitution that can’t be easily updated to meet new societal needs. ie legalizing gay marriage would have been very difficult with a codified constitution, as all that was necessary for the UK was an act of parliament.
- Rights and liberties: However, there is ambiguity over what constitutes citizens’ rights. A codified constitution with an entrenched Bill of Rights could protect civil liberties from parliamentary sovereignty and arbitrary changes. ie Post-Brexit debates have intensified especially regarding the ECHR. Jenrick and Farage have argued in favour of repealing the HRA for a British Bill of Rights for UK citizens, in order to deal with illegal immigration and deportation of foreign criminals. This could potentially erode rights. Public Order Act 2023 restricted right to protest by a dominant government.
- Uncodified constitution is more proficient in developing human rights, as changes are not permanent or outdated for rights.
- Power of Institutions: The principle of parliamentary sovereignty of the UKs uncodified constitution allows for decision-making by a democratically elected government. A codified constitution could lead to judicial overreach. The unaccountable would have excessive power to interpret and enforce the constitution, evident in the power of SC in America. The subsequent significance of their role could politicize an institution that ought to be neutral.
- Power of institutions: An argument against parliamentary sovereignty is that the concentration of power in Westminster could lead to elective dictatorships. A written constitution would provide stronger protection from abuses of power with robust checks and balances.
- Ultimately, the historical stability and evolution of the UK constitution has functioned effectively for over 300 years, proving the success of the uncodified system.
- Constitutional changes: The uncodified constitution has facilitated the evolution of power away from Westminster to regional assemblies. There is a robust system of checks and balances due to the separation of the Supreme Court in the CRA 2005.
- Constitutional changes: Devolution is still incomplete and asymmetrical, and the process of devolution has challenged sovereignty and constitutional rights, ie Scotland and Gender Recognition bill.
What are the key constitutional reforms made since 1997?
Rights: HRA 1997, Equality Act 2010, Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act
Devolution: Scotland / Wales Act 1998, 1999 NI, 2014 and 2012 Act, 2022 SC ruling on second independence referendums, 2025 gender bill recognition ruling, Scotland 2012 Act and Wales 2014 Act
Changes to the parliamentary system: 1998 House of Lords Reform, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, FTPA 2011 repealed 2022,
Fixed Terms Parliament Act, AV referendum, and expanded
devolution powers further.
Other constitutional changes: Brexit, 2019 Prorogation of Parliament
Constitutional reforms: Rights
Human Rights Act 1998
* Enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Codified existing human rights into UK law
* Prior to this act, human rights cases had to be taken to the court in Strasbourg,
France, which was costly and time-consuming. Thus broadening accessibility
* Strengthened civil liberties. Modernized the courts. Increased awareness of human rights. Demonstrated how EU law superseded parliamentary sovereignty.
* It has been criticised for misuse, such as protecting suspected terrorists’ rights. Granting too much power to judges, especially post-Brexit.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
* Increased access to information held by public authorities.
* Empowered citizens to be more proactive in knowing their rights and accessing
information. Bolstered investigative journalism.
* This act enabled journalists to uncover the scandal of free donations to politicians, using freedom of information requests. Thus, helping hold the government accountable
Equality Act 2010
* Consolidated anti-discrimination legislation.
* Introduced the idea of protected characteristics.
* Sought to improve equality of opportunity and address intersectionality.
* Provided greater recognition of ableism and facilitates those with disabilities.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
* Introduced scrutiny of security services.
* Enhanced oversight of surveillance and data collection.
* Gave the public more power and rights to challenge the information and data held
by government and public bodies.
Constitutional reforms: Parliamentary system
House of Lords Reform Act 1999
* Addressed the unelected and undemocratic nature of the House of Lords.
* Abolished the right of most hereditary peers to sit in the Lords by virtue of
their titles. Only 92 hereditary peers remained, elected by their peers.
* Previously, there were over 792 hereditary peers.
* Most Lords are now appointed, emphasizing the House as a revising chamber.
* Did not resolve tensions around the Lords’ role in blocking legislation.
* Government influence over political appointments has raised concerns about nepotism, corruption, and cronyism (Lord Ali scandal)
* There have been calls for an elected House and decreasing the size of the Lords
* Labour’s Hereditary Peers act seeks to complete Blair’s efforts for a fully appointed second chamber
Brexit
* Implemented the results of the 2016 referendum on EU membership.
* Facilitated the legal transition away from the European Union.
* Prompted by a Supreme Court case requiring an Act of Parliament to leave the EU.
* The UK has retained some EU laws, but many have been changed.
* Concerns exist regarding safeguards protecting against the major political
repercussions of these changes.
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
* Prompted by concerns over the lack of separation between the judiciary and
executive.
Enforced separation of powers to ensure accountability and fairness.
* Established the Supreme Court, separating the highest court from the House
of Lords.
* Reformed the role of Lord Chancellor, replacing this figure as head of the judiciary with the Lord Chief Justice.
* Established the independent Judicial Appointments Committee.
* Increased transparency, modernization, and depoliticization of the judiciary.
* Ongoing debates about judicial appointments for greater diversity, as the Supreme
Court is unrepresentative
Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011
* Aimed to establish predictability in the timing of UK general elections.
* Limited the executive’s ability to call elections at advantageous moments, setting a fixed 5 year period between general elections
* Can only call for a snap election if two-thirds of MPs vote for an early election, or the Commons passes a motion of no confidence
* Led to gridlock and rigidity in political crises.
* The act was bypassed by May in 2017, and in 2019, by Johnson, repealed in 2022.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of constitutional reform proposals?
Codification of the UK Constitution:
* Pros: Clarity, accessibility, entrenchment of citizens’ rights, stronger
safeguards against government abuse.
* Cons: Loss of flexibility, becoming outdated, difficulty in achieving consensus on content due to societal diversity and divisiveness.
Electoral Reform: Replacing FPTP with proportional representation.
* Pros: Address disproportionality, greater representation of smaller parties,
boost further engagement.
* Cons: Fragmented Parliament, coalition agreements, weaker effective
decision-making.
Devolution: Greater devolution for regional and local governments, decentralization away from Westminster.
* Pros: More local areas should be able to elect mayors for greater transparency and
accountability.
* Cons: risks low turnout, undermining legitimacy, clash of mandates and bureaucracy
Example: Scotland, SC rulings
Devolution Issues: Scotland’s push for a second independence referendum and the UK government blocking gender reform laws.
Judicial Review & Executive Power: Supreme Court ruling against the Rwanda asylum policy and its implications for the separation of powers.
Scotland Gender Recognition bill was overturned by UK Parliament, citing Article 35 of the Scotland Act
ETVT constitutional reforms since 1997 have improved the British political system / been successful in achieving their objectives.
Due to the UK’s uncodified constitution, profound constitutional reforms can be swiftly made, evident with Blair’s major legislative programme since 1997. By analysing constitutional reforms on rights, the parliamentary system, and devolution, this essay will ultimately argue that these reforms have overall been positive for the UK political system.
- Human rights: On the one hand, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporated the ECHR into domestic law, was seminal in explicitly enforcing fundamental human rights. This included the right to life, shelter, and freedom from torture. Crucially, Blair did not create these rights but rather codified them into statute law, which holds the greatest constitutional authority. Therefore, the HRA has strengthened the UK’s political system, as courts can deem actions and bills “incompatible” with the HRA (as seen in the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Rwanda Bill), and thus punishes or prevents human rights violations. The HRA remains a foundational piece of legislation that empowers human rights and raises awareness of fundamental liberties, enhancing democracy and citizens’ rights. Additionally, the Equality Act 2010, consolidated anti-discriminatory laws to provide greater protection against discrimination by setting out protected characteristics. For example, it increased awareness of accessibility in buildings for people with disabilities, improving social inclusion. It also broadened equality of opportunity in workplaces and education by comprehensively merging over 116 separate pieces of legislation into one clear and coherent document, providing greater clarity in an uncodified constitution. Therefore, it can be argued that rights have been greatly protected and publicised with recent constitutional reforms.
- Human rights: On the contrary, some argue that these acts have not gone far enough in protecting citizens’ rights or have been applied in ways perceived as unjust. The HRA has faced criticism for protecting the rights of suspected terrorists and failing to safeguard asylum seekers. Brexit has further inflamed calls to repeal the ECHR from UK law and replace it with a British Bill of Rights: leading Conservative and Reform Party politicians such as Robert Jenrick have advocated for leaving the ECHR. Some critics argue that the HRA is too lenient on illegal immigrants, while others claim that the Equality Act does not sufficiently protect intersectional minority groups. Further, there have been strong arguments that rights are not well protected in the UK and are vulnerable to erosion. Ultimately Supreme Court rulings that deem a parliamentary bill as incompatible are not legally binding, and therefore this suggests that rights may need further protection in the UK (within a codified constitution). The debate over the Rwanda Act suggests that there may be a need for a codified constitution in the UK. It shows that rights can easily be eroded by strong governments. Ultimately, the Human Rights Act is not entrenched, devolution and it could be removed. However, this argument is relatively weak, as the HRA is a foundational principle in the modern political fabric of the UK’s constitution and is likely to remain immovable. In the unlikely scenario that the HRA is removed, the politicians are certain to face public backlash, and thus the political repercussions of such actions would deter them from doing so. Whilst the arguments suggesting the reforms have not gone far enough, it is undeniable that the reforms have strengthened our political system. Thus, overall, constitutional reforms regarding rights have been largely positive, codifying citizens’ rights more explicitly.
- Parliamentary reforms: Blair’s 1999 House of Lords reform modernised this undemocratic and seemingly anachronistic institution. The reform abolished hereditary peers’ right to sit in the Lords, reducing their number from around 700 to 92. Most Lords are now appointed based on merit, expertise, and experience rather than inheritance. This reform redefined the Lords as a revising chamber with the power only to delay legislation, strengthening the authority of democratically elected MPs and enhancing UK democracy. In addition, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 further strengthened the UK’s political system by separating the judiciary from the executive. It removed the Law Lords from the House of Lords and established a separate Supreme Court, enforcing a clearer separation of powers and a more effective system of checks and balances. This act improved transparency and fairness in the political system by bolstering judicial neutrality and independence, reducing political bias in legal interpretations. The appointment of Supreme Court justices is now monitored by an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, making the process less susceptible to political manipulation and strengthening the impartiality of judicial decisions.
- Parliamentary reforms: However, some argue that these reforms are incomplete or ineffective. There has been long-standing debate over whether the House of Lords should be entirely abolished and replaced with an elected chamber to enhance democratic legitimacy fully. The Lords have been criticised as a place for retired ministers and political appointments based on cronyism (as seen in the “cash for honours” scandal). Additionally, judicial power remains limited by parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court can only declare a bill “unlawful,” not “unconstitutional,” as its rulings are not legally binding. Further, some parliamentary reforms have been less successful. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) was intended to prevent prime ministers from calling early elections to consolidate power. However, Theresa May bypassed it in 2017 by securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament for a snap election, and Boris Johnson repealed the act entirely. Additionally, these reforms did not address more fundamental issues within the House of Commons, such as the “elective dictatorship” caused by the fusion of powers between the executive and legislature. The FPTP voting system remains unchanged, with the 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) referendum on electoral reform failing. This means that governments with a relatively low popular vote share can make controversial decisions with little parliamentary oversight. On balance, while some reforms have been ineffective or incomplete, constitutional reforms since 1997 have largely been beneficial in modernising and democratising UK Parliament. However, rights reforms remain the strongest argument for the success of constitutional changes.
- Devolution: Devolution was one of the major constitutional commitments made by Blair as part of New Labour’s political agenda, further developed by later governments, though it is debatable whether devolution has been good for UK democracy. On the one hand, devolution has been beneficial to the UK political system, as it has decentralised power away from “English-centric” Westminster, empowering Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to make decisions tailored to their needs. Devolved governments better reflect the political and cultural priorities of their regions. For example, Scotland’s government has taken different policy stances on education (free university tuition fees) and healthcare (COVID rules) compared to Westminster. This is beneficial, as devolved governments can implement policies that suit their specific needs (i.e Scotland and Wales have tax-varying powers to be able to have greater autonomy over finances), settling long-standing nationalist tensions and allowing politics to be more representative. Devolution has enabled a more diverse range of groups and representatives to participate in their respective parliaments, leading to greater representation of women and ethnic minorities in leadership positions. This level of inclusivity may not have been as achievable within the UK’s traditionally binary political system without the opportunities provided by devolution. Devolution played a crucial role in stabilising Northern Ireland, particularly through the Good Friday Agreement (1998), by enabling power-sharing between unionist and nationalist parties. Therefore, it can be said that devolution was a necessary action to take to prevent further sectarian conflict. Devolution has created an additional layer of political accountability by limiting the power of the UK government over domestic policies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which would otherwise be ignored due to the “tyranny of the majority” (England having the greatest number of MPs in UK parliament).
- Devolution: On the other hand, devolution has intensified calls for independence, rather than abate it, particularly in Scotland, where the 2014 independence referendum and Brexit have reignited demands for full separation from the UK. This has led to the fragmentation of the UK’s unitary state, with the respective regions having weakened affinity to the UK. Further, the asymmetric nature of devolution has fuelled tensions and led to policy divergence. Devolution has raised questions why England lacks a devolved parliament, and why Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs can vote on English laws, but English MPs cannot vote on devolved matters, which some MPs find as a democratic imbalance, leading to the EVEL procedure in 2015. Differences in policy between devolved regions and Westminster can create inconsistencies in laws, public services, and taxation across the UK, potentially leading to resentment among citizens. Further, the Barnett Formula, which determines funding allocation to devolved nations, has been criticised for favouring Scotland and Wales over English regions, creating financial disparities (i.e for every £100 the UK government spends on an English person, £126 is spent on a Scottish person, devolution has meant the UK government has had to cover defitis for those regions). Among the primary objectives for devolution were aspirations for regional politics to be characterized by greater cross-party consensus, higher participation, and fairer representation. However, the reality has fallen short of these goals. Devolution has led to increased nationalist partisanship, stronger calls for dismantling the Union, and higher costs for taxpayers. Policy divergence across the UK, such as differences in university tuition fees and rights, has been a key point of contention, often seen as asymmetric and confusing. Moreover, voter turnout in regional elections has been lower than in general elections.
Overall, constitutional reforms have been beneficial to the UK political system, by placating nationalism and being essential in promoting peace to Northern Ireland.
ETVT the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose, and that it should be codified.
Historically, the UK has had an uncodified constitution, meaning the rules and practices that establish the extent of government authority and the rights of citizens are not written in a centralized document, nor entrenched. However, there has been a long-standing debate about whether the UK should codify its constitution. By analysing the flexibility of the current constitution, the extent to which rights are protected, and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, this essay substantially rejects the notion of a codified constitution for the UK.
- Flexibility of the constitution: The uncodified nature of the UK constitution allows for flexibility, as it can swiftly respond to changing socio-political circumstances without requiring complicated procedures to amend it. Since the uncodified constitution is unentrenched, it can be updated simply by changing, repealing, or passing an Act of Parliament. For example, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, introduced by David Cameron to hinder the executive from calling early elections, was repealed in 2022 by Boris Johnson, who criticised it for delaying government decision-making during the political turbulence of Brexit. This clearly demonstrates how the constitution can evolve to reflect current needs and be more efficient, compared to a codified constitution which would quickly become irrelevant and outdated. Furthermore, this ease of amending the constitution may be more democratic, as the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (the authority of the current government as supreme) places power in the hands of elected representatives accountable to the public. Thus, rules are not arbitrarily dictated by an archaic document, which could be interpreted and exploited in various ways.
- Flexibility: On the contrary, the flexibility of the UK constitution is a double-edged sword: too much change to the constitution has led to a lack of clarity and could result in ill-conceived reforms. Since each parliament is sovereign, no laws are legally binding to future parliaments, meaning successors can reverse changes made by the current government. For instance, the 1972 European Communities Act enshrined the UK’s membership in the EEC (later the EU) and established the supremacy of EU law over UK law- this was reversed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The tremendous political repercussions of this decision are still felt in the UK today. Consequently, the UK constitution lacks consistency and predictability. Moreover, conventions (traditional customs and practices) are not legally binding and can be easily undermined with little oversight. For example, Brown’s convention requiring the Prime Minister to seek parliamentary approval was ignored when Cameron attacked Libya and Sunak sent missiles to Syria. Thus, there is very little protection against excessive change, creating the risk of ambiguity, instability, and poorly thought-out reforms. However, this is a weak argument, as the UK has only defied tradition and conventions in exceptional circumstances. The uncodified constitution has facilitated pragmatic development, which has been very successful for generations. Therefore, the UK constitution ought to remain uncodified.
- Protection of rights: Civil liberties have been adequately protected by common law. For example, the case of Entick v Carrington was a foundational case that set a legal precedent for protecting civil liberties and the rule of law, ensuring protection from arbitrary abuse of power. The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 successfully incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, strengthening clarity over people’s rights. Since this Act holds significant constitutional importance, it is unlikely to be repealed in the foreseeable future. Similarly, the Equality Act 2010 has improved legislation on human rights and discrimination. With a codified constitution, there might be fewer safeguards against new forms of discrimination, especially given the complex procedures for amending a codified constitution. The Equality Act 2010 consolidated anti-discrimination laws and created protected characteristics (features that are illegal to discriminate against). These Acts are cornerstones for protecting rights in the UK and have been instrumental in their development. For example, the UK High Court ruled the Rwanda Bill, which intended to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, as unlawful on the basis that it violated the ECHR. Thus demonstrating how the UK’s uncodified constitution can adequately protect civil rights. A codified constitution only reflects the socio-political climate of the period in which it was constructed and would quickly become outdated. For instance, legalising gay marriage might not have been possible under a codified constitution. Evidently, the UK constitution more proficiently facilitates the development of human rights, and should remain uncodified.
- Protection of rights: On the contrary, it can be argued that Britain’s uncodified constitution does not adequately protect the rights of its citizens, as statutes are liable to change, potentially infringing or removing civil liberties. A codified constitution could override parliamentary sovereignty and entrench citizens’ rights, preventing them from being removed by poor decision-making. The HRA is ultimately a statute that could be suspended or repealed, meaning people’s fundamental rights are at risk. Recently, there have been debates about replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights, particularly after Brexit, to explicitly outline citizens’ rights. A codified constitution could more effectively recognize and protect the rights of minorities, especially in the UK’s multicultural and diverse society. Consequently, the public could become more politically empowered due to greater clarity about their relationship with the government. However, this is a weaker argument, as the ability to adapt laws to better align with evolving rights far outweighs the rigidity of rights in a codified constitution, which are entrenched and inflexible. Thus, the UK constitution should remain uncodified.
- Parliamentary sovereignty: The UK’s uncodified constitution is beneficial through the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, whilst ensuring Parliament adheres to the rule of law and remains accountable to the public. It can be seen as more democratic than a codified constitution, as elected representatives can engage with the electorate and pluralist organisations to create constitutional change. For example, a key agenda of Blair’s 1997 government was to update the constitution, and his strong electoral mandate legitimises this, and he used his momentum to work with pressure groups such as Liberty to develop the HRA. In contrast, a codified constitution risks judicial overreach, with courts (unelected and unaccountable to the public) having the authority to interpret and exploit the constitution. This undermines the UK’s democratic process. A codified constitution also disrupts parliamentary sovereignty, as it could be weaponised to block reforms or push ideological changes, severely hindering the government’s ability to pass legislation, creating gridlock.
- Parliamentary sovereignty: On the other hand, parliamentary sovereignty can be dangerous if placed in the wrong hands, particularly with low voter turnout and the disproportionality of FPTP overshadowing the legitimacy of the governing party’s mandate. A codified constitution could provide stronger protections against abuse of power, limiting the ability of unpopular governments to alter fundamental principles with a simple parliamentary majority, or act dictatorially. The 2019 prorogation of Parliament highlights how an uncodified constitution can be used, as PM Johnson suspended Parliament for 5 weeks, during critical limit parliamentary scrutiny over Brexit plans. Thus, the lack of entrenched legal safeguards allowed the executive to exploit constitutional conventions for political gain. The move was challenged in court and ultimately ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court, which found that the prorogation had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This decision underscored concerns about the potential for abuse of power under the UK’s uncodified constitution, where constitutional conventions rely on good faith adherence rather than legal entrenchment. However, this argument is weak, as restricting parliamentary sovereignty would compromise the political fabric of UK democracy and prevent Parliament from delivering its electoral mandate. The historic stability and peaceful transitions of power over decades demonstrate the strengths of an uncodified constitution as a robust framework that holds governments to account. Additionally, power has increasingly been dispersed from centralized governance to devolved bodies and assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which would not have been possible with a codified constitution. Therefore, the UK constitution should remain uncodified.
