Sovereign states around the world are governed by a constitution that underpins the laws of the land. Most countries have a written constitution, such as the United States, Canada and France, while the United Kingdom, Israel and New Zealand have an unwritten constitution. A written constitution is characterized by a complete codification of all laws and constitutional principles. On the other hand, the unwritten constitution tends to contain a large part of the principles uncodified, which is very characteristic of the British constitution. '[1]Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The reason why the English constitution adopts this unusual unwritten nature is simple. This is because of the historical development of England. Written constitutions are not the result of chance. A country acquires a written constitution deliberately, and as a direct result of a political event…” Most often, the unwritten nature of the British constitution has been characterized as advantageous. The British constitution has more political values ​​than legal values. The citizens and Parliament of the United Kingdom respect the rule of law and constitutionalism and this is clearly explained by two words from [2] Geoffrey Marshall, who argues that "the most obvious and unquestioned convention of the constitutional system British is that Parliament does not use its unlimited sovereign power of legislation in an oppressive or tyrannical manner. It is a vague but clearly accepted constitutional rule, which is based on the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law. As an unwritten constitution, the British constitution is very flexible and can easily evolve and adapt to changing times. Modern times require changing the law to adapt to current trends, perceptions and beliefs. It is enough for Parliament to recognize the need for change and thus continue to propose amendments. Therefore, it is observed that the traditional laws of the British constitution do not hinder progress but rather are subject to modification in order to adapt to changing situations. For example, greater separation of powers through the [3]Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and a reduction in the manipulation of general election results following the fixed-term law [4]The Parliaments Act 2011 Perhaps the most significant modernization changes have taken place in the field. of human rights, with the [5]Human Rights Act 1998 and the [6]Freedom of Information Act 2000. This feature constitutes entrenchment and given that there are democratic procedures put in place and that the judiciary and parliament are there to safeguard human rights. constitution, it is then best suited to reflect a constantly changing world. Promoting transparency, accountability, democracy and mandate are distinct benefits of the UK constitution. All matters concerning the constitution are dealt with by Parliament, consisting of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The government is likely to be dissolved and must therefore report to Parliament. [7]Constitutional behavior is suppressed by this unwritten constitution through conventions, which have led to parliamentary laws that force the government to resign if it loses after a "no confidence" vote in Parliament. The power of the most written constitution is granted to judges who are not elected, making them highly superior and susceptible to influence bysubjective factors. Thus, parliament acts as a quality control tool and, through constant government regulations and monitoring, is able to ensure democratic legitimacy. Despite the advantages of the unwritten constitution, there are limits to its supremacy. The unwritten nature of the constitution can encourage its politicization. The fact that parliamentary supremacy is considered the supreme law and that the courts act only to regulate Parliament establishes a political reality. This reality underlies the defenseless nature of the courts of law due to the absence of a codified constitution. Furthermore, the flexible nature of the unwritten constitution carries risks. All laws are subject to fanciful changes by Parliament or government as there is no specified legal status. Furthermore, it facilitates the erosion of individual human rights due to the absence of a strictly enforceable legal system. He also argued that the unwritten constitution lacks clarity. This is contrary to a written constitution, which is detailed and explicitly addresses the limits of parliament and government. This makes it easily accessible to ordinary citizens and at the same time promotes the transparency of judicial decisions. And we are reaching a point where we must ask ourselves to what extent a codified constitution is the best option for constitutional reform in the UK. The argument for a written constitution is that it would allow everyone to know what were the rules and institutions that governed and directed ministers, civil servants and parliamentarians in the exercise of their public functions. [8]The sprawling mass of common law, Acts of Parliament and European treaty obligations, surrounded by a number of important but sometimes uncertain unwritten conventions, is impenetrable to most people and must be replaced by a single document of fundamental law dictating the operation and operation of government in the United Kingdom is easily accessible to everyone. Furthermore, it has become all too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience, and well-established procedures are necessary to ensure popular and parliamentary consent, which requires a written constitution. The current “unwritten constitution” is an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuitable for the social and political democracy of the 21st century and the future aspirations of its people. It does not give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process. A written constitution would circumscribe the boundaries of the British state and its relations with Europe and the world. Today it would become a symbol and expression of national identity and a source of national pride. The argument against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and un-British. The fact that the British system of government has never been reduced to a single document is an indication of the success of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and the stability it has brought to the country. This contrasts with most other countries whose written constitutions are the product of revolution or independence. The unwritten nature of the constitution is quintessentially British, it reminds us of great history and is a source of national pride. Contrary to claims that it is outdated, it is scalable and flexible in nature, making it easier to resolve practical problems as they arise and to implement reforms, 2000