The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement?
In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements. The laws and customs of Parliament re also a source of the constitution. Works of authority are also referred to as authoritative sources such as books by Dicey or Bagehot. Finally, European Union Law also impacts the UK constitution as the judgements of the European court of Justice, in general EU law has precedence over that passed by Parliament.
A codified constitution is too inflexible and cannot adapt to the changing political circumstance, such as society changing. An uncodified constitution is much more flexible for when archaic laws need to be replaced with something more adept to modern society. This also means that codified constitutions may fossilise the political systems as that system may have originated many years go and not be practical in this time, whereas uncodified constitutions are able to evolve over time, and thus embody the climate of the day. This can be shown from the US constitution which has had only 26 amendments since 1787, this shows the difficulty of changing an entrenched written constitution.
Countries with codified constitutions have a legislative process that can seem complicated, lengthy and also ineffective. A startling statistic is that only 5% of legislation in the US reaches the statute books, this is due to the rigid system that does not allow legislation to pass without rigorous checks and balances which...