1. Explain and evaluate the arguments for and against

codifying the UK constitution. (25 marks)

Answer: A codified constitution is one that is written down

in a single document or a set of documents, and is usually

entrenched and protected by a higher court. The UK has an

uncodified constitution, which means that its constitutional

rules and principles are derived from various sources, such

as statutes, conventions, common law and EU law.

Some arguments for codifying the UK constitution are:

- It would provide clarity and accessibility for citizens, who

could easily find out their rights and responsibilities, and

the powers and limits of the government.

- It would enhance the protection of human rights and civil

liberties, by entrenching them in a supreme law that could

not be easily changed by a simple majority in Parliament.

- It would improve the balance of power between the

executive, the legislature and the judiciary, by creating a

clear separation of powers and checks and balances among

them.

- It would strengthen the rule of law and constitutionalism,

by making the government more accountable and subject to

judicial review.

Some arguments against codifying the UK constitution are:

- It would reduce the flexibility and adaptability of the