Should the UK have a codified Constitution ?

Welcome to another podcast from the Politics Shed, which supports the work of the Politics Shed website. For anyone interested in politics, or studying it, today...

Constitution of the United Kingdom.

An interesting aspect of the UK democratic system is its absence of a formal written or codified constitution. This leads to a favourite question of political analysts, academics and politics teachers, and more significantly for students, examiners. Should the UK have a codified constitution?

This question will delight debating societies and spark conversations in A-level politics rooms. It's not a question that excites much debate, however, outside of these places. For the student of politics, however, the discussion of whether or not the Constitution should be codified in the UK leads to some important analysis and to a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the British political system and how it compares with others.

In the UK, the laws, rules and customs that describe the Constitution are not consolidated into a single document. This characteristic is shared with only two other nations, Israel and New Zealand. Many countries have established a codified Constitution when they are newly formed, and have undergone significant political upheaval, or have broken away from colonial powers. In contrast,

Britain has not experienced a major constitutional break since the 17th century. An attempt to create a codified or written constitution during the Protectorate period was abandoned with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Consequently, the UK's constitutional foundations predate the formal constitutions of most other countries, including the USA, which codified its constitution

in the 18th century. The UK also exhibits other distinctive features in its constitutional arrangements. Many nations have entrenched constitutions which can only be amended through extraordinary procedures, such as a single majority in their legislature or a referendum. In the UK, laws that alter constitutional principles, such as the Human Rights Act of 1998,

subject to the same legislative process as ordinary laws, such as those regulating the quality of cheese or enforcing the safe disposal of refrigerators. Regarding the structure of government, the UK has a parliamentary system. Some countries operate presidential systems where the head of government and legislature are elected separately and neither depends on the other for continued office.

In parliamentary systems, the head of government and ministers are elected through the legislature and rely on its confidence to remain in office. There are two main types of parliamentary government, the Westminster model and the Continental model. The Westminster system emphasises single party rule, typically through first past the post elections, with two major parties competing for power.

Continental model favours consensus politics, often involving coalition governments formed through proportional representation. Many Commonwealth countries have adopted parliamentary systems. Hybrid systems also exist, such as in France, where the president is directly elected, but a prime minister-led government is formed through legislative elections.

Several democracies in Central and Eastern Europe have adopted a similar hybrid arrangement. Only the USA follows a system where the legislature and the executive are strictly separate institutions with shared powers. So across the globe, most democracies operate under a constitution described in a single document outlining core principles, rights and institutional structures.

These documents specify how principles are upheld and how rules can be amended. In the UK, however, there is no single explicit constitutional text. Unlike other countries with constitutional courts or supreme courts to adjudicate constitutional disputes, the UK does not have such mechanisms. Since leaving the European Union, the UK has no overarching set of higher rules that take precedence

over other laws. Its legal system is more fluid, with Parliament able to pass legislation that can significantly alter the Constitution without an extraordinary process. So if the UK has no codified Constitution, what sort of Constitution does it have?

Textbooks will tell you that the British Constitution is found in several places. The Constitution is sometimes referred to as an unwritten constitution. The more accurate observation is that it is uncodified or not collected and defined in clear terms in one place or one document. Why is it said to be unwritten? Because elements of the British Constitution are indeed unwritten, as we shall see.

So if not described in a single document, where is the British Constitution to be found? I'll briefly outline those places and the sources of the British Constitution. First and most importantly, the Constitution of the UK is found in statute laws made by Parliament. As I've said before, any statute law that pertains to something relevant to the Constitution is a change.

to that constitution. The laws that took us in and out of the European Union, laws that changed voting rights and the voting age, laws that introduced new rights such as the recent legislation on assisted suicide, devolution laws and so on. Parliament is our constitutional amendment chamber. Any government can change the constitution if it has a majority and can pass the law.

through both houses or both chambers of parliament. So, the first location then of the British constitution is in a long history of statute law. A second location is in significant historical documents, including the Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition of Right of 1628, and the English Bill of Rights of 16...

These documents established fundamental rights and underpin the principles of the rule of law and a constitutional monarchy.

third place to look for the British Constitution is in the way these laws are interpreted. Like the American Constitution or indeed any law written by man in the form of words, it's open to interpretation. All laws therefore have to be interpreted for clarity and since the passing of the Human Rights Act in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Areas of ambiguity

have to be clarified in order that laws can be applied in situations unforeseen by Parliament. If a case arises where no relevant statutory law exists, the courts will rely on past precedent. In these cases, the courts are creating case law which will guide future courts unless or until it is overturned by Parliament which is supreme.

A body of case law, which adds up to hundreds of years of past cases, has set precedents for future cases. As these court cases or case law develop, general principles, such as equality before the law and fairness, begin to emerge and solidify.

So the second area then of the UK constitution is case law. And while case law is written down in law books, that many lawyers and trainees, solicitors and barristers must learn the precedents they establish, these are therefore not unwritten elements of the constitution. However, how the constitution is applied, since elements of it are based on tradition, practice and precedent, can be defined in important

textbooks. Notably, significant textbooks or works of authority have become important manuals for understanding the British Constitution. Works such as William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and the writings of A. Dicey, Walter Badgett or Erskine May are often incorporated into elements of the Constitution or serve as sources for understanding it. These texts help to clarify

how to interpret specific situations or how the Constitution might be applied. For example, they address the extent and application of parliamentary privilege, the boundaries of parliamentary power in relation to the executive. For example, how the sovereign's powers are differentiated between the dignified power of the monarchy and the efficient power of government, as described by Walter Badgett. In the 2017 Miller case,

Question of parliamentary sovereignty versus royal prerogative was in part guided by Erskine May. So works of authority are the fourth element of the UK's constitution.

As a side note, in the USA the Federalist Papers perform a similar function. Another place where the UK Constitution is said to be found is in treaties. These are agreements that government has made with foreign nations or multinational organisations such as the European Convention on Human Rights or membership of the EU through treaties like the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Maastricht,

or the Treaty of Amsterdam. Although Brexit took the UK out of the EU, much of the impact of those agreements remains, as they've been incorporated into British statute law. Even after Brexit, the UK has by necessity continued to be influenced by EU laws and principles, which are found in EU treaties. While the UK constitution is said to be flexible,

and therefore unentrenched, these treaty elements are among the most entrenched parts of the UK constitution as they require renegotiation. During the time the UK was in the EU, the question of parliamentary sovereignty was a major issue. Critics argued that membership of the EU diminished parliamentary sovereignty with cases like the Factor Tame case, establishing clearly that EU law

was supreme over parliamentary law, while the UK was a member of the EU. So while influence of EU treaties remains, Brexit has re-established formal legal sovereignty of Parliament. While the Human Rights Act establishes that if statutory laws are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, Parliament must respond, often by amending the law, it is not compelled to do so.

Finally, the UK constitution can be found in conventions. These are truly unwritten elements. Rules, customs and traditions done because that's the way things are traditionally done. For example, the UK has a cabinet, but no law explicitly states that it must have one. The size of the cabinet, the prime minister's appointment process, the prerogative powers, the monarch's royal assent, the Salisbury Convention,

and many other practices are based on convention rather than law. It is true, however, that in nations with codified constitutions, statute laws, treaties, case law and conventions can all have constitutional significance. The main difference is that the codified document and not the legislature is the supreme constitutional authority.

Before I finish describing the landscape of the UK Constitution, an interesting side note here is to compare the American and UK constitutions. The UK Constitution appears to be quite flexible, as any statute law passed by Parliament can alter the Constitution, and the unwritten elements such as conventions can be disregarded, changed or altered through time and practice. Over the years,

This has transformed the UK from a society where democracy was relatively limited in the 19th century to one where women can vote and people aged 18 can vote. It may even be possible, it looks fairly certain in fact, that 16 year olds will be voting at the next election. The American constitution on the other hand appears to be very rigid due to its extraordinary amendment process. Amendments to the constitution

are outside the work of Congress or the President. While Congress can initiate changes, they must be ratified by three-fourths of the states or a special convention, which is rarely done. The failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and the numerous other attempts at changes highlight its rigidity. However, a closer look suggests, conversely, that the British Constitution is curiously rigid. For example,

House of Lords, which many governments, including Labour governments, agreed needs reforming, has changed very slowly. Through outsiders, the House of Lords, with its titles, ermine robes, limited powers and archaic customs, appears to be an anachronism left over from medieval times. The same can be said of the monarchy and other aspects of British life, such as the legal system with its wigs and gowns, inns of court and barristers.

which can seem quaint and steeped in tradition. The Palace of Westminster, built in a neo-Gothic style in the 19th century, reflects the British desire to root their constitution in the past. The British constitution steeped in tradition and conservative principles tends to resist change, emphasizing the principle, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This conservative approach results in a more rigid constitution.

than may initially appear. The US Constitution is also more flexible than it appears. It is a short document with significant areas of ambiguity and silences or gaps which are filled and interpreted by the Supreme Court or Congressional laws. This brevity and ambiguity make the American Constitution more flexible

than it seems at first glance. The first 10 amendments, or Bill of Rights, are often seen as inviolable, but their meaning has evolved. Americans have decided that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, and later that it is not so cruel and unusual, that women have the right to terminate pregnancies, and later that this is not a right. This flexibility of the US Constitution has allowed it to outlive, most longer,

and younger constitutions around the world.

So, let's now turn to the debate in the UK. Should the UK codify the Constitution? There are arguments on both sides which you might find persuasive, which at least in part explains why codification remains a low priority for governments. While for the purposes of an essay you would need to take a clear view from the beginning, I shall outline the debate on both sides.

To codify the UK constitution would prove an opportunity to modernise and clarify institutional structures and processes. It would also strengthen citizens' rights and it would bring the UK's constitution in line with most of the rest of the world, which may make the UK more understandable when seeking cooperation and integration with other legal systems. The modernising and reforming opportunities

offered by codification may explain why it has generally appealed more to liberal and left-wing parties and less to traditional conservatives who fear the unintended consequences of sweeping away practices and institutions which have stood the test of time. They would argue the UK constitution may not always make sense but it works. It is also argued

that not having a codified constitution has its advantages. One of these advantages is that it allows for flexibility and easier adaptation to changing circumstances. This view tends to use the rigidity of the US Constitution, notwithstanding what I said earlier, as an example to be avoided. The Electoral College, with all its faults, the Second Amendment,

which makes gun control so difficult, can be seen as anachronisms, saddled on modern America by a rigid 18th century constitution. The US Constitution, since its adoption in 1787, has been amended only 27 times, with 10 amendments in 1791 establishing the Bill of Rights. In contrast, the UK Constitution has evolved continuously through history.

with regular amendments responding to societal changes and political pressures, such as the devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the UK's withdrawal from the EU. This flexibility allows Parliament to respond swiftly to crises, exemplified by the 1996 ban on handguns following the Dunblane School shooting, which was enacted rapidly due to public support.

As society evolves rapidly, a rigid codified constitution might become outdated quickly. The fact that the UK has avoided civil wars and revolutioned for much of its modern history while evolving into a democracy is attributed to its flexible constitution. However, this argument can be countered by pointing out that lessons learned from the rigidity of the American Constitution

and the inability of Americans to deal with guns because of the Second Amendment is rather misleading. The comparison made between the entrenched American Constitution with the British flexible Constitution is not the only comparison that can be made. There are many constitutions in the world, the vast majority of which are codified, and governments find themselves quite capable of meeting emergencies by amending their constitutions.

During Covid, for instance, the British government was able to pass emergency laws quickly. But the same applies to the French government and the Germans with their codified constitutions. The American constitution is rigid, not only because of the extraordinary processes required to amend it, but also because Americans hold the constitution in such high esteem, almost with devotion. The British have always exhibited a pragmatic approach

to constitutional change. A future codified British constitution might be amended through different processes or might have a two-tier system, such as a supermajority in parliament of two-thirds or other checks and balances, which could make it somewhat more difficult to change or some aspects of it more difficult to change, but not as rigid as the American system.

This leads to the suggestion that making it easier to amend the constitution defeats one of its primary purposes, namely that it prevents governments from reshaping the constitution to their advantage. However, most countries seem to find some form of compromise.

flexibility argument also works both ways. Since governments have found it all too easy to encroach on civil rights, as I will outline later, and alter the constitution for party political advantage, flexibility may seem to be a problem for the UK constitution. An example might be making ID a requirement of voting, such as passports or driver's licence.

This may be seen as deterring poorer Labour voters and was enacted by a Conservative government for party political reasons. It also might be suggested that extending votes to 16-year-olds, which is the plan by the next election, might advantage Labour. The evolution could be seen as a means of deflecting support for nationalism in Labour strongholds, however not very successfully as it turned out. And Brexit was a Conservative attempt to do the same.

for the emerging far-right parties. Also, with, it turns out, limited success.

Another disadvantage of a codified constitution is that it would grant judges too much interpretive power as they decide what laws mean, therefore what the constitution is. This power is amplified if the constitution is entrenched since interpretation might have consequences over many decades. Again, the USA is cited here regarding the Supreme Court's decisions such as Roe v. Wade,

or in the 19th century, the disastrous consequences of the Dred Scott case. Critics also assert that since judges are unelected and unaccountable to the public, it makes it inappropriate for them to resolve political disputes. Therefore, some see the absence of a written constitution as a safeguard for democratic decision-making. Constitutional courts, in countries with codified constitutions,

have become embroiled in politics. For example, when the Constitutional Court annulled the result of the presidential election in Romania in 2025, or when the US Supreme Court, in the case Bush v Gore, gave the presidency to George W Bush in the year 2000. It is argued that while all legal decisions can be said to have a political dimension, a codified constitution would give the courts

a significantly elevated political role. This role, it is said, has politicized the US Supreme Court since the appointment of justices has become hugely politically significant. With the result of the US Supreme Court has greatly declined in perceived trustworthiness in recent years, with the majority of Americans seeing the American Supreme Court as governed by

partisan rather than judicial decision making. This however also might be countered by the argument that politicization of the Supreme Court is because of the appointment procedure for the Supreme Court in the United States which is in the hands of the President and Congress. Therefore this could be avoided in the UK or at least limited by an independent and open appointment process.

As noted before, the courts in the UK have not been free from political controversy and are criticised by politicians and the tabloid press, since legal decisions will inevitably have political significance.

The argument that a codified constitution would undermine the sovereignty of parliament is based on the current supremacy of parliament, which in the UK means that parliament is the final and highest legal authority. Codified constitutions create an authority which is above legislators. In the USA and nations with codified constitutions, legislation can be struck down by courts if they are judged to be unconstitutional.

As of July 19th, 2025, French courts have struck down significant parts of recent legislation, including large sections of a toughened immigration law passed in January 2024, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council. In the UK, by contrast, any law that is challenged by the courts, by the process of judicial review,

can be amended and any ruling by the courts can be overturned by new legislation. This leaves ultimate legislative authority in the hands of elected representatives rather than un-elected judges. Here the counter-argument might be that the supremacy of parliament is an illusion since parliament is dominated by the executive.

Governments control Parliament through disciplined party majorities. So in reality the UK has executive supremacy. Given the unfairness of the first past the post system, governments rarely win elections with the majority of the electorate. Therefore a codified constitution would act as a safeguard against excessive and unwarranted executive power, which in the UK is referred to as an elective dictatorship.

For example, the case of Shamima Begum, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, removed the UK citizenship from a young woman who was born in the UK and had been trafficked out of the country as a child. In the case of Shamima Begum, the courts failed to protect her in the absence of an entrenched constitutional protection of her human right of citizenship. It might also be pointed out

that judges are highly trained experts with a long tradition of impartiality, which is why they're used to investigate the most convoluted issues through judicial inquiries. Therefore, enhancing their role is no bad thing. Critics of codification of constitutions might point out that while the US Constitution states that birthright citizenship in the US

is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment which states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This is currently being tested by President Trump's executive order. the contrary, when this reaches the Supreme Court, it will be an important test of how effective entrenched constitutions actually are at protecting rights.

Defenders of the current status quo in the UK might argue that the dominance of the executive is in fact an advantage of the UK system since governments can carry out the mandate on which they were elected. This means that governments cannot blame the courts if they fail to carry out their election promises. In this sense, the supremacy of parliament gives UK governments nowhere to hide.

and so enhances accountability. It might be argued that the dangers of elective dictatorship are exaggerated. Britain's uncodified constitution has a long history of rights protection and government accountability. The peremptory termination of the careers of apparently dominant prime ministers, for example, Mrs. Thatcher, Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Liz Truss, well, not so dominant in the case of Liz Truss.

all suggest that elective dictatorship is not a useful description of power in the UK. The passage of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act have added to rights protection and have been utilised by the courts through judicial review to successfully defend rights. The UK judiciary is generally viewed as one of the most professional and independent in the world.

has successfully defended the Constitution, in cases such as Miller too, when the courts ruled that Boris Johnson exceeded his powers when he prorogued Parliament in 2019. While the case is often made that codified constitutions act as a protection of citizens' rights and the US Bill of Rights is often cited, it could be pointed out that the US had a Bill of Rights from the birth of the Constitution or shortly thereafter.

Yet it failed to protect African Americans from slavery. Jim Crow laws, two centuries of racial persecution. It also failed to protect Native Americans from similar treatment. Currently, President Trump's use of emergency powers and executive orders is testing the efficacy of a written constitution's ability to maintain a system of checks and balances.

which may seem as vulnerable to the excesses of a dominant executive would sway over a supine party in Congress as anything in the UK. It is also often noted that Russia and China both have codified constitutions which have proved to be of little obstacle to an authoritarian dictatorship. Students of history will also know that the Weimar Republic

was easily swept aside by Hitler in 1933, it also had an extensive codified constitution.

Defenders of the status quo might also argue that the goal of limited government can be achieved through other reforms, such as strengthening checks and balances, devolving power to local authorities, enhancing rights protections, and electoral reforms without the need for a formal codified constitution. Given ongoing reforms in these areas, some argue that the UK should continue to develop its unwritten constitution.

rather than adopt an entirely new framework. It is also asserted that riots have been protected and authoritarianism avoided in the UK as a result of institutions and traditions which have stood the test of time and have gained strength and authority as a result. However, those who argue for codification suggest that this traditional complacency associated with if it ain't broke don't fix it

has been challenged by recent events. Therefore supporters of codification argue that the UK's political system is currently in crisis, evidenced by calls for independence in Scotland and Wales, Brexit, declining political participation and eroding trust in institutions. They contend that a codified constitution would limit government power, which is traditionally concentrated

excessively in the hands of the state and has been drawn into increasingly draconian security policies such as the recent proscription as a terrorist organization of Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action protest group comparable with the suffragettes. Since the primary purpose of a constitution is to constrain government authority it must be independent from political influence. Trust in a government that

can expand its powers at will is problematic. This issue stems from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The only way to challenge this sovereignty is through an entrenched, judicially enforceable constitution, which would safeguard the rights of citizens and prevent the government from overreach. Judges, being above politics, could serve as guardians of the constitution. Currently,

The position of the independent and neutral judiciary has been undermined by the eroding political consensus as issues such as immigration and terrorism have polarised politics and forced the judiciary into taking sides in divisive political debates. Therefore, those who support the codification of the UK constitution argue that a clear definition of legal principles would act to distance the judiciary

from accusations of political activism, since it would guide how they interpret the law and establish precedents. In other words, judges are already highly political and for some too powerful. Critics of the right who argue for a British Bill of Rights see it as a means of curbing the power of activist judges, and critics of the left who wish to see stronger rights protections might be reassured by a codified constitution. Codified constitution acts therefore

preserve the neutrality and independence and status of judges, to protect people from the possible politicization of judges and their activist decisions, and protect us all from an overreaching government.

The decline in political participation, generally evidenced in low voter turnout and membership of political parties, as well as declining levels of trust, might be partly the result of a lack of a clear written constitution which makes it difficult for citizens to understand the rules governing their political system. In countries with codified constitutions, they are often taught in schools, displayed publicly and accessible online, fostering transparency.

and public understanding. In the UK, the rules are less explicit, which some believe diminishes democratic participation. Many British people, when asked if they know their rights, will assert a right to silence with reference to Miranda rights they have heard on US police series on TV.

Therefore supporters of a written constitution advocate for a formal set of rules that would enable public debate, enhance transparency and clarify the basis of governance, including the terms of independence, autonomy of regions like Scotland. The case of the Secretary of State's veto of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland, as well as the unresolved West Lothian question, suggests that piecemeal evolution

has left the UK with an unbalanced and unfair constitution where rights and representation are unevenly distributed. The reforms, therefore, begun by the Labour government after 1997, are incomplete and have created more problems than they solved. And the only way to solve these problems is to finally have a blueprint which expertly designs a new constitution.

The argument that a codified constitution is not needed in the UK since the British constitution operates quite effectively therefore has lost some of its potency in recent years. The ease with which the British government was able to remove the UK from the European Union, the chaos under the premiership of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, suggests that the British state and its institutions are not as robust and healthy as once might have been thought.

the arbitrary use of referendums, generally when the government is in crisis or facing a problem they can't resolve or confident of the outcome. This has tested the British constitution. A codified constitution might clarify or outline how and when referendums should be used, the exact rules, how majority decisions are made or in what circumstances a second referendum should be called.

The Brexit vote was extremely narrow, with plenty of evidence suggesting the electorate was misled. Yet, there were no plans for a second referendum.

This suggests that the British flexible constitution is not as flexible as it appears since it seems that for political reasons a second referendum is out of the question. At the same time, how a second referendum might take place remains uncertain, guided by purely political considerations. Do recent political events suggest that the UK's constitution

is functioning effectively. The peaceful transfer of power following the resignations of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and subsequent leadership elections within the Conservative Party demonstrate a stable and accepted constitutional process. The system effectively constrained executive power as neither Johnson nor Truss could continue in office without parliamentary support, illustrating the system's capacity to act as a check on the government.

This process contrasts with the more contentious and less predictable constitutional crisis in other countries. The success of the Scottish National Party in maintaining a peaceful independence movement further supports the idea that the UK's constitutional arrangements are resilient, unlike Spain, where pro-independence leaders faced imprisonment for defying the government. The Scottish independence referendum was conducted within legal and constitutional bounds, avoiding violence.

One of the strongest arguments against a codified constitution builds on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty I've discussed earlier, because it makes creating an entrenched higher law impossible as parliament cannot bind itself. However, a new process such as a constitutional convention followed by a referendum could potentially legitimise a new constitution, though it would still require

parliamentary approval? The question remains whether the popular sovereignty expressed through a referendum could potentially entrench a new constitution which would still require statutory law. Ultimately, a fully sovereign constitution akin to that of the USA is unattainable under the UK's constitutional framework. Another challenge to codification.

is the lack of political consensus on what a new constitution should entail. Crafting a new constitution is a complex and often contentious process, especially in a nation with deep-seated traditions of class and ideological politics. Key issues include whether the constitution would prioritise limited government, aligned with conservative principles, or guarantee citizens' rights to social services and healthcare.

which are more aligned with labour values. Major political parties may hesitate to embrace reforms that threaten their positions, as seen when labour lost interest in proportional representation while in power. The debate over whether the UK should adopt a codified constitution remains primarily, therefore, academic, with limited support from politicians, aside from the Liberal Democrats, who have long advocated for such a change.

along with a Bill of Rights. While pressure groups like Charter 88 have emerged to promote the cause of codification, there is no widespread public demand for it. Most citizens tend to favour change when existing systems are demonstrably and clearly failing. While it is sensible to argue that a codified constitution is a good idea, whose time has come and this argument has gained strength due to recent developments,

and weaknesses exposed in the British Constitution, it's also true that codifying the British Constitution is unlikely to happen anytime soon. A significant argument against attempting to codify the Constitution is the difficulty involved. If a constitutional convention of independent experts or judicial panel were set up to draft such a constitution, it would become politicised and debated just as heatedly as the American Constitution was.

often vigorously and vehemently and sometimes violently.

It is doubtful that any formulation of a codified constitution would not be viewed through partisan and ideological lenses, and a consensus would be unlikely. While France has amended and rewritten its constitution multiple times, this has generally been in response to profound failures of the current system. Such a process may indeed occur in the UK one day.

This ongoing debate, therefore, reflects differing views on the nature of politics, whether it should be rule-based, with clear constraints, or more fluid, allowing political institutions to have the final say. Extent of power decentralisation also influences opinions on how democratic the UK is. Ultimately, perspectives on this issue depend on how one receives the balance between legal rules

judicial interpretation and political discretion in a democratic system.

Thank you for listening to this politics podcast from the politics shed.

You could find a transcript of this podcast, arguments outlined clearly on both sides, and example essays taking alternative views on the Politics Shed website.