Introduction
Unlike many other nations of the world, Britain does not have a written constitution. A written constitution consists of all the laws and by-laws of a country that have been written down and explained in details. In a written constitution, every law that governs a particular nation is usually contained therein. A written constitution therefore consists of one large document, containing all the laws of a country.
However, the British constitution is not contained in a documented book, but the different rules and laws governing the country are contained in different documents. Some of the laws are not even contained in any document, but nonetheless, they exist and are in use (Jones, 2009). The British government exercises full parliamentary sovereignty, whereby the parliament is able to pass all the laws of the country.
In addition, parliament has the final word on most matters concerning the nation. The British governance is thus dependent on the customs and traditions of the nation. Just as many other nations have rules that have to be followed by members of the society, albeit informally, the British government also works in a similar manner.
In 1970, Britain joined the European Union and the question that now arises is whether the British government will have to change its mode of governance in order to fulfill the demands of the European Union (Jones, 2009).
The most evident structure of the British government is the parliament. Parliament exercises full supremacy in the nation. In all the undertakings of the British government, the final decision rests with the parliament. The British parliament is built around democratic governance and this ensures that all its actions are directed towards democratic governance.
On many occasions, it has become necessary to change issues that harm or affect people negatively. On the other hand, if something does not seem to have any harmful effect, I do not think it would be of any use trying to change it (Jones, 2009).
The unwritten constitution
The nature of Britain’s unwritten constitution seems to be the best thing for the entire British kingdom. This is because British laws are not constant but dynamic. For this reason, I am obliged to support the idea that Britain should continue with its current mode of governance, whereby use is made of the unwritten constitution even though the country is now affiliated with the European Union (Jones, 2009).
The rules and regulations governing Britain can always be changed to suit any situation that arises. For example, changes in the economy can easily be incorporated by changing the laws of the nation. This is one of the strong points that have enabled Britain to be on the forefront in matters concerning the economy.
In a written constitution, any changes in the economy of a particular nation cannot be incorporated into the nation immediately they occur. This is because doing so would be against the written law and hence, illegal. It would take some time for such changes to occur because the constitution would have to be changed as well.
By the time the constitution is changed, sometimes the intended changes may no longer have a positive impact on the people, unless the intended effect is long-term. Among the countries with a written constitution, the courts have the power to strike down the judiciary of the country. However, this is not the case with Britain since, it is only parliament that has the legal supremacy over all the other sections of the nation (Jones, 2009).
This does not give the courts the authority to strike down any of the actions of the parliament. Sometimes, the actions of the courts are not usually up to standard since they must adhere to the written laws and regulations. As such, they do not take into account the benefits of a given situation at present or in the future. This brings in the issue of legal and non legal rules (Jones, 2009).
All the laws contained in a written constitution are the legal regulations that should be followed at all times. This rule out the possibility of having to do something that is against the constitution, even though it may not be harmful. In Britain, both the legal and non-legal rules are contained in the constitution. The non-legal rules constitute a significant part of the constitution. These are referred to as conventions.
The conventions are also flexible, in that they can be changed when need arises, unlike the written laws. However, not everybody is entitled to such conventions at all times. One can fail to adhere to a particular convention at a particular time when they feel that it is the best thing to do. This cannot be termed as illegal or against the law since conventions are not there to be followed at all times.
This is unlike in the written constitutions where there are no legal and non-legal rules. All the laws are classified as legal and anybody who goes against these written laws is deemed to have defied the constitution. Consequently, such a person may be prosecuted in a court of law. In conventions, the court does not have any power over their influence (Politics Association, 1988).
Considering that the British government has been operating under an unwritten constitution and that no major chaos has arisen due to this form of governance, it would really be hard for the people to understand the need to change from an unwritten to a written constitution.
Since Britain is now operating under a coalition government that is required to conform to the laws set by the European Union, this does not necessarily mean that Britain has to adopt a written constitution (Jones, 2009). The best thing that needs to be done is to for Britain to adhere to the laws laid down by the European Union.
Whether the European Union laws are incorporated into Britain’s constitution in written form or unwritten, the most important thing is to acknowledge their presence and abide by them. If Britain’s constitution is changed from unwritten to written, it may bring about some adverse effects.
The people are already used to the unwritten constitution and most of them are aware of the laws and regulations that govern the nation. With the adoption of a written constitution, the flexibility of laws would be cut short and it would be hard for the nation to catch up with the changing dynamics of the economy (Jones, 2009).
Human Rights Act
The European Union contains many written and well explained laws. The fact that they are written does not mean that everyone in any country under the European Union is fully conversant with each and every law. Only a few people could be fully aware of such laws. Thus, the best thing is to be aware of the existence of the laws and to follow them to the best of your capability.
A major problem that seems to arise is whether British courts can acquire the power that the Human Rights Acts enforced by the European Union offers (Jones, 2009). Again, the Human Rights Act encourages cooperation between the legislature and the judiciary of a nation but the final say is always reserved to the parliament.
This shows that although courts in Britain may end up acquiring some more power as a result of the Human Rights Act, the parliament can still retain its role as the final decision maker of the nation.
This shows that no major changes need to be effected in the British government as a result of the Human Rights Act being in operation. British can still retain the supremacy of the parliament because, the main theme of the parliament’s actions are to the benefit and welfare of all the nation’s citizens (Politics Association, 1988).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the British government does not necessarily have to change the laws of its nation for having joined the European Union. What needs to be done is to enforce the laws that have been outlined by the European Union. These can be exercised alongside the laws of the nation.
At the national level, Britain can continue with its operations as before but when it comes to matters concerning the coalition government, Britain is bound to follow the laws outlined by the European Union.
Parliamentary supremacy has been the mode of governance and it can still continue to be, with only a few changes occurring to the courts, since, due to the Human Rights Act, they are bound to acquire some more power than before (Jones, 2009).
Reference List
Jones, B. (2009). British politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Politics Association (Great Britain). (1988). Talking politics. London: Politics Association.