Should Britain have a written constitution?

[dimpy.handa]

Without a written constitution, the UK has no Bill of Rights to protect its citizens from an overpowerful state. The existing Human Rights Act provides only weak protection, with judges only able to rule that new laws are "non-compliant" with the Act - the government can ignore such rulings if it wishes. The Human Rights Act can easily be (and has been) amended by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament. A written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights would provide much stronger protection for the rights of the citizen.

 

[dimpy.handa]

The current public debate concerning the need or desire for a written constitution for the United Kingdom is in its fourteenth year. During the past 14 years, events in many instances have made moot some of the arguments for constitutional reform for the United Kingdom, as well as rendering obsolete some proposed constitutional models.

 

[swatiraohnlu]

"It it ain't broke, don't fix it," argue opponents of a written constitution, who insist that the existing arrangements, however piecemeal their development has been, have worked well in practice. There are, moreover, formidable practical problems to be overcome before such a document could be drawn up. Would it be wide-ranging and largely abstract or would it list individuals' rights in detail ?