-6

Generally expected from a constitution to be a single document, describing the legal framework of the legal system, including how law can work in the country (example, machine translated).

UK, while I think it is clearly constitutional, somehow does not have such a document. Instead, widely cited opinion of anyways trustable sources that a sample of various other laws fulfill this role (example).

However, I believe, it would be quite easy to just pass a law which specifies this sample of laws as "the constitution". It had no other purpose as declaring the UK constitutional de jure.

Could it happen? Why not?

Improve this question
10
  • 3
    The UK has a constitution, it just is spread out among multiple documents and it takes more then simply passing something in parliament to change it. consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/….
    – Joe W
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:01
  • @JoeW Read the whole question. Obviously you can not expect an "independent educational foundation" of the UK with the name "Constitutional Education" to call the UK unconstitutional. The widely accepted definition of constitution is that it is a single document which is stronger as the ordinary laws. You can not call a random sample of laws constitution, they might fulfill a similar role but it is not a constitution (again, read the whole post).
    – Gray Sheep
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:06
  • 4
    As Arno said, why would they? What tangible benefit would it serve compared to the current situation? Your question seems to imply it would be a no-brainer but doesn't offer any clear explanation as to why you think that.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:08
  • Please read my entire comment, the UK already has a constitutions that defines what the UK is and parliament can't change that on their own. The UK government can call itself whatever it wants to just as other countries can call themselves anything that they want to.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:22
  • The UK describes itself as a "constitutional monarchy". See for example the introduction to Chapter 1 of the 2011 Cabinet manual though constitutional details can and have changed: for example that document was written taking account of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which was since repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
    – Henry
    Commented Jun 28 at 13:10

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
9

Besides the obvious counter-question of "Why would they?", one of the accepted constitutional principles is that parliament cannot bind future parliaments. Thus, while the current parliament could pass a law spelling out a constitution, any future parliaments could just as easily revoke it. This would be very different from how eg the US or the German constitutions work, where modifying the constitution has significantly higher hurdles than a mere majority in parliament.

Improve this answer
6
  • 3
    It also brings up the old point of whether that can even really be called a constitution.
    – suchiuomizu
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:19
  • The answer of the counter question is that having a constitution also de jure is better as having only de facto. But what I find much more interesting, this is the binding. For example, what if the parlament, for example, ratifies an international agreement binding the whole UK, including its future Parlament? I think, that can happen, thus some bindig for the future is still possible.
    – Gray Sheep
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:22
  • 2
    @GraySheep How is it better? How many hundreds of years has the current UK constitution been in place without any issues?
    – Joe W
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:23
  • @JoeW UK is exceptional because no one went there to overthrow everything, and to kill everyone who resists. With continental countries it happens average once per century.
    – Gray Sheep
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:26
  • 3
    @GraySheep Or it shows that they have a stable and working system with no reason to change it. Parts of it have been in place since 1215 and there has been governments overthrown in since that time.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:34
3

  1. The UK has a constitution. A constitution comprises the principles, rules and laws that establish our system - we already have those. We don't have a codified constitution, i.e. a constitution written in one document.

  2. Parliament can make or unmake any law and, as a consequence, Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. So, Parliament could create a constitution and change it or abolish it as Parliament wishes.

  3. There are arguments for and against us having a codified constitution and inevitably there would be different points of view about who should contribute to it and what should be in it. There's not a huge amount of political support for or political capital in having a codified constitution. We tend to prioritise many other things over having a codified constitution. The issues and problems that ordinary people tend to prioritise are not things for which a codified constitution is necessary to solve - it's just not important to most people.

  4. In comments the questioner says:

The widely accepted definition of constitution is that it is a single document which is stronger [than] the ordinary laws.

We don't have a hierarchy of 'constitutional clauses' and ordinary legislation (although sometimes this notion has been advanced by judges and theorists).

  1. The UK's constitution has been (somewhat haphazardly) developed for centuries. We are not the oldest continuous representative democracy in the world but we are among the oldest. A codified constitution tends to be negotiated and written at the founding of a polity. E.g. after a revolution or civil war.
Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    The U.K. to some extent uses international treaties as a work around for a lack of entrenched legislation. It isn't perfect and a treaty can still be abrogated by parliament, but the superiority of treaties to domestic law in the U.K. and potential consequences from other treaty signatories makes it harder. The Council of Europe related treaties are the most prominent example of this tactic.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:58
  • 1
    @ohwilleke treaties arguably aren't superior to the law, but they are "the government's problem" in a way which the concept of parliamentary supremacy makes difficult for legislation, which has fundamentally the same effect. Not that a lot of ink (and photons) aren't wasted on the topic regardless.
    – origimbo
    Commented Jun 27 at 18:08
0

After thinking a lot about the score of this question, suddenly I think I have an enough strong idea to summarize it as an answer. Actually, the downvotes and comments to this question made for me a much more clear answer as the posts.

The essence of the other answers are obviously not acceptable; a sample of laws in the role of a constitution is clearly not a constition. That is only a sample of laws.

The reactions have clearly shown as I have touched - unintentionally - a sensitive point. I think some patriotism is okay to a country, but that is about the country, and not about its legal system.

There must be something, which is

  • specific only to the UK
  • might have some emotional importance is many politics SE users
  • to the extent that they politely and "factually" try to "correct" me into a clearly faulty explanation.

The only what can be specific in the UK, is that they have 800 years old laws still in force (at least on paper) and no one has the spine to clean them up. No one wants to polish them up, they are pretty happy with it. The long-term stability of their legal system, consequently their political system, and is an admirably rightful source of their national pride.

My current best bet is that tradition is actually not so strong as they imagine, but all the players believe that the others would act upon it, and that makes also them to keep the tratition. It is some like a Nash equilibrium for them. And actually that is their real constitution and not a written paper. This is also the reason, why they do not write a paper: it would be a competitor to their tradition.

Thus, one thing is that they do not have a written constitution, I believe actually they can not have it - it would be a change what no one wants.

Instead, their "sample" of laws in the role of constitutuion, and the many century long political tradition fulfills the role of the constitution. As long it is fine to them, nothing will change that, and - as the votes and comments show - it is pretty fine for them.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .