With reference to the source and your own knowledge, what tensions exist between creating a codified constitution and retaining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty? - Edexcel - A-Level Politics - Question 1 - 2018 - Paper 2

A key tension arises from the principle that no parliament can bind its successor. Under a codified constitution, one might argue that any legislation passed could potentially restrict future parliaments, which contradicts the foundational aspect of parliamentary sovereignty.

Another tension is the challenge of having a codified constitution exist alongside parliamentary sovereignty. As some argue, constitutional arrangements necessitating a codified constitution fundamentally alter the relationship between law and parliament.

It is unlikely that a consensus could emerge in parliament regarding the parameters of a codified constitution, especially since such legislation must pass through this body. Disagreement on core principles would undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Implementing a codified constitution would necessitate an expanded role for the judiciary in interpreting constitutional provisions. This shift could be seen as diluting parliamentary sovereignty, as courts would gain greater power over legislative actions.

There is typically no consensus among the general public regarding the contents and scope of a codified constitution. As the public opinion fluctuates, this inconsistency can challenge the legitimacy of such a constitutional framework.

It can be quite challenging to convert existing conventions into hard constitutional rules. This conversion often results in rigidity, contrasting with the evolving nature of parliamentary sovereignty that allows for flexibility.

Parliamentary sovereignty allows for adaptability and change. The introduction of a codified constitution could create a fossilized legal framework, reducing the flexibility needed to address contemporary issues.