The UK is better off not having a written constitution
The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. (Wiki)
Is the UK better off not having a written constitution?
Are we better off no having to obey an entrenched and rigid document?
I agree
Side Score: 5
|
![]() |
I disagree
Side Score: 3
|





