Arguments against a written constitution
...type of constitution enables the government the ability to control the legislature, to carry out its electoral mandate without undue delay or opposition. It also allows it to deal with unforeseen circumstances without encountering the hindrance of too many constitutional restraints. This quality is most admired by the USA and the European continent. Also, the British are able to normally enjoy a relatively free hand in financial and economic policy implementation. In effect Britain has the power to be able to act decisively, a written constitution would mean a loss of this power. A written constitution naturally disables the means of flexibility, which can be seen as a strong point under an unwritten constitution. The fixed principles do not allow the political system and the features that characterises it, to evolve naturally with the society. Therefore adaptations to major changes in the setting of politics are denied. Furthermore, a written constitution frequently needs the courts involvement in resolving constitutional disputes. As many of these disputes are of a political nature, it is doubted whether judges are fit to pronounce on issues with clear political implications. Opponents of a written constitution argue that such conflicts must be left to elected politicians at Westminster, as the judges are not elected and irresponsible. A written constitution would consequently put the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, the basic feature of the B...