A codified constitution is a constitution completed with a set of laws that an individual or set of people have created and approved upon for governmental use and is documented in a single place. There are several arguments as to why a codified constitution has more advantages than it does disadvantages, the ones I will be arguing are; without one our rights are not adequately protected, it would have an educative and citizenship function and our current system is too flexible. Alternatively others may argue that in fact the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and the arguments I will be covering for this are; there is no need for change when we’re stable as it is, we would become rigid and make it harder to adapt and finally it would be difficult to reach an agreement. After having researched into this on-going debate I formed an opinion that the disadvantages of a codified constitution still outweigh its advantages, therefore I will begin to discuss the disadvantages first.
One of the main arguments for the disadvantages of a codified constitution is that our country works well with having an uncodified constitution and if we suddenly change it we may become unstable and there is also a possibility of there being unforeseen consequences. Therefore we would be going against the whole idea of changing constitutions as they are seen to be a fresh start or new beginning for when a country has hit a crisis. For example this was the case for Italy in 1948 and Germany in 1949 when they created a new constitution after being defeated in war and the destruction of the previous Fascist and National Socialist regimes. However Britain has yet to reach such crisis within our constitutional development since the 17th century. Hence why we, as a country, have never felt the need to conform to creating a codified constitution. Moreover this can also link to the argument that the constitution is organic and should be left to evolve naturally and an example for this would be...