Introduction

1. Clarity vs. Flexibility

Extract 1 Argument: Lack of clarity has “exacerbated recent political crises,” specifically citing the uncertain legal status of referendums versus Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Extract 2 Argument: The constitution is organic and “continues to adapt to the changing needs of the nation.”
Analysis & Examples:
- Uncodified nature: Uses Conventions and Authoritative Works which lack legal force (AO2 - flexible but uncertain).
- Adaptability: The Firearms Act 1997 shows how quickly the UK can legislate in a crisis compared to the “outdated” U.S. Second Amendment.
Evaluation: Extract 1 is stronger regarding the “legal status of referendums” (e.g., the 2016 Brexit fallout), but Extract 2 correctly identifies that codification could lead to rigid, “absurd” outcomes.

Extract 1 Argument: The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 is insufficient because it doesn’t enjoy the “same status” as a codified bill of rights.
Extract 2 Argument: Rights are already protected via Statute Law (Parliament) and Common Law (Judiciary).
Analysis & Examples:
- Statute-based rights: The Equalities Act 2010 centralizes protections effectively.
- Vulnerability: Under Parliamentary Sovereignty, rights are “easy to remove.” Note the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which limited protest rights.
- Judicial Role: Judges can issue “declarations of incompatibility,” but as Extract 1 suggests, they cannot strike down law.
Evaluation: Extract 1’s concern about “rights being removed easily” is validated by recent legislation, making the case for a higher-tier “entrenched” constitution more compelling for civil liberties.

Extract 2 Argument: Codification passes power from “the elected to the unelected” (judges), posing a “profound challenge to democracy.”
Extract 1 Argument: (Counter-point) The lack of clear rules allows the executive to dominate, as seen in the “inadequacy of the current devolution settlement.”
Analysis & Examples:
- Executive Dominance: The Iraq War (2003) demonstrates how a PM can bypass the Cabinet and manipulate intelligence in a system with weak checks.
- Checks and Balances: Extract 2 notes the Brexit process involved “all three branches,” showing the Rule of Law still functions (e.g., the Miller Case).
Evaluation: Extract 2 is more persuasive regarding “democratic legitimacy.” In a Unitary State, moving final say to the Supreme Court would mark a radical shift from the principle that “Parliament is the supreme law-making body.”

Extract 1 Argument: The current settlement “cries out” for a written constitution to define the status of devolved administrations.
Extract 2 Argument: Relations with the EU (and by extension, major constitutional shifts) are “reserved to Westminster,” maintaining national unity.
Analysis & Examples:
- Tensions: The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 shows how Westminster can override judicial or regional concerns, fuelling tensions in Scotland/Wales.
- Unitary vs. Federal: The UK remains a unitary state where “devolved powers ultimately rest with Parliament.”
Evaluation: Extract 1 identifies a major “failure” in the current settlement; without codification, the relationship between Westminster and the devolved nations remains precarious and “unresolved.”

Final Comparison: Extract 1 highlights the modern “crises” of clarity and regional tension. Extract 2 emphasizes the “profound challenge” of judicial supremacy.
Judgment: While the uncodified system has “worked for 1,000 years,” the “erosion” of rights through recent statutes suggests a need for better safeguards. However, a full codification remains unlikely due to a “lack of popular demand” and the risk of empowering unelected judges over a sovereign Parliament.