Is a Written Constitution the Right Thing for the UK?

I am cautious about enforcing the Constitution in my country, but the current right is stable and seems not to need to be changed. Current arrangements have served the UK for centuries and are solely dependent on treaties. In my opinion, rather than complicating the situation, we should focus on analyzing the growing problems affecting our country. Because there is no written constitution, we can adapt the existing law more quickly and easily to change of situation.

Establishment of the Constitution - For historical reasons, the UK is one of the four countries in the world that have not adopted the Constitution (other countries are Israel, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia). The most fundamental proposal for constitutional reform, in particular the LDP's support, is probably to have a formal written constitution, perhaps in accordance with certain constitutional customs, perhaps a referendum. Therefore, in the general election in May 2010, this situation seems to have changed for decades or more, but in reality, most of the measures discussed in the alliance agreement have problems. Nevertheless, due to the Scottish independent referendum of 2014, the discussion on the UK Constitution is now more intense than at other times.

It is often said that the UK has no constitutional provisions, but there are numerous written regulations, judgments and de facto constitutions under the treaty in this country. Over the past two decades, the effectiveness of this constitution has been somewhat challenged by the increasing influence of EU legislation in British problems, and in many cases it is necessary to incorporate a number of EU laws and regulations not. Formerly we need to formalize the elements of the UK Constitution that had mainly existed in two or more separate written elements. In particular, the "European Convention on Human Rights" and the subsequent "Human Rights Act of 1998" indicate that there is a need to formally define specific rights within the framework of the UK Constitution, and the resulting changes are enormous.

The British Constitution officially followed the concept of Congress sovereignty but Britain joined the United Nations after World War II and approved the European Convention on Human Rights (prepared primarily by British civil servants) and in 1972 the European Union . In all three international agencies, the constitutional tradition of other Member States has made the court play a greater role in judging whether the court is consistent with human rights. According to the Human Rights Act of 1998, the UK has authority to review the law in accordance with the courts of the European Human Rights Court, mainly to prevent lawy parties from spending the expenses of the domestic court system and appealing to Strasbourg to the Court I decided to give. The "European Convention on Human Rights" is primarily concerned with the privacy and family life rights stipulated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to enjoy the property under Article 1 of the first Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights in peace In order to relate to the land law.