Why doesn't the United Kingdom have a written constitution?

The British constitution

The British constitution has evolved over many centuries. Unlike the constitutions of America, France and many Commonwealth countries, the British constitution has not been assembled at any time into a single, consolidated document but the constitution of UK is made up of common law, statute law and convention. Only Israel Of all the democratic countries in the world is comparable to Britain in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation. Common Law is deduced from custom or legal precedents and interpreted in court cases by judges - it has never been precisely defined . Conventions are rules and practices which are not legally

enforceable, but they are considered as indispensable to the working of government. Many conventions are taken from the historical events through which the British system of government has evolved. One convention is that Ministers are accountable and can be held to account for what happens in their Departments. The constitution can be amended by Act of Parliament, or by general agreement to alter a convention. The flexibility of the British constitution helps to explain why it has developed so fully over the years. However, since Britain joined the European Community in 1973, the rulings of the European Court of Human Justice have increasingly resulted and codified sections of British law in those areas covered by the various treaties to which Britain is a party. In the process British constitutional and legal arrangements are taking to be resemble those of Europe.

Does the United Kingdom have a constitution?

The answer to this question is yes. It has been admitted that the UK does not have a written constitution; i.e. a documentary or codified constitution but the UK constitution has been referred to as recognizable entity. It is worth remembering that there is an alternative view, namely that there is no UK constitution, however, this bears the orthodox view. 

Should the United Kingdom have a written, codified constitution?

The vital arguments for a written and codified constitution Parliament is at present unrestrained. It can make or unmake any law. It cannot be checked by any other branch of the system. Its heavy workload can signify poor laws are passed. The independence of the Judiciary needs to be protected. Basic rights of citizens are identified and guaranteed. There will be less constitutional crises because there will not be confusion as to what is 'unconstitutional behaviour'. In absence of Bill of Rights, it is Parliament's duty to preserve liberties. However these can be removed at any time by Parliament (e.g. Internment, the Prevention of Terrorism Act).

The vital arguments against a written and codified constitution:

The British constitution has served them well over the centuries, so why change the system now. After all, if it needs to change in future then it can continue to evolve. The current system provides strong and effective government. There is accountability and supreme authority.

A written constitution has to be relatively uncertain to allow it to evolve as society evolves. However this means it will be constantly open to judicial interpretation. This poses a problem for a number of reasons. Judges are unaccountable and do not have to answer to Parliament or the public. Judges are unrepresentative of the public, as such they are unlikely to represent minority groups or activists, and will interpret the law in a biased way. What would go in a codified and written constitution? Politicians on the left and right would disagree massively over the contents of a constitution. A constitution only works if politicians are willing to act in a constitutional manner and abide by the documents of the constitution. Even the courts cannot force the government to conform.

Legal consequences of the unwritten constitution:

Where there is a written constitution, the legal structure of government may bear a wide variety of forms. Within a federal constitution, the tasks of government are classified into two classes, those entrusted to the federal or the central organs of government, and those entrusted to the various states, regions or provinces which constitute the federation. Thus in countries such as Germany Canada, Australia or the USA, constitutional limits bind both levels of government, and these limits are enforceable in law. In many countries it may be desired to place entrain rights of the citizen beyond reach of the organs of government; these fundamental rights may be entrenched by requiring a special legislative produce if they are to be amended or even by rendering them in essence unalterable, as in Germany'. Again constitution seek to void a concentration of power in the hands of any one organ of government by adopting a separation of powers, vesting legislative power exclusively in the legislative, executive power in the executive and judicial power in the courts.

Within the United Kingdom, there is no written constitution to secure these objects or serve as the foundation of the legal system. The resulting vacuum is occupied by the doctrines of the legislative supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law, their interrelation being one of the fundamental questions of public law in Britain. These doctrines will be examined later, but one result is that formal restraints upon the exercise of power exist elsewhere do not exist in the United Kingdom. For example, no truly federal system can exist so long as Parliaments legislative supremacy is maintained. Just as Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920, devolving powers of self-government upon Northern Ireland, so in 1972 Parliament could suspend operation of the Act of 1920 by re-imposing direct rule upon Northern Ireland. For a formal federal system to be established a written constitution would be necessary, limiting the powers of the Westminster Parliament and preventing it from taking back devolved powers into its own hands. In law the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly may be cut down or revoked by further legislation as Westminster, the safeguards against this happening are political rather than legal.

There is no universal definition of constitutional law. According to one wide definition, constitutional law is that part of national law which governs the system of public administration and the relationships between the individual those and the state. Constitutional law presupposes the existence of the state and includes those laws which regulate the structure and functions of the principal organs of government and their relationship to one another and to the citizen. Where there is a written constitution, emphasis is placed court with constitutional jurisdiction. One problem of definition in the United Kingdom is that many of the rules and practices under which our system of government operates do not have the force of law. Without knowledge of these rules and practices, knowledge of the legal rules alone is vague and sometimes misleading. These rules, principles and practices are essential to an understanding of the relationship between what may be called the political constitution and the legal constitution and provide a constitutional meaning to apparently disparate events.

Another problem of definition is that, unlike legal system in which law is divided up into a series of codes, there is no hard and fast distinction in Britain between constitutional law and other branches of law. A great legal historian advised students of constitution law that they should take a wide view of the subject; there is hardly any department of law which does not, at one time or another, become of constitutional importance. For example, in the field of family law, vital protection for family life is provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and family status is an important basis for many rules of immigration control. In employment law, freedom of association and the law of picketing are of constitutional importance. A lot of civil liberty issues arise out of criminal law and procedure. The way in which the machinery of justice and the courts protect private rights and arbitrate in disputes that involve the public interest is of immense significance. Constitutional law does not understand the whole of the legal system, but that the manner in which issues concerning powers, rights and duties are settled is of direct concern to constitutional law.

Do written constitutions have any value?

The short answer to this question is yes. Written constitutions are valuable in the sense that they provide some indication of what actually happens in practice. A constitutions actor may look to the constitution to see what is required of them in a given situation. However, without considering the length and complexity of a constitution, it is highly unlikely that it will contain all the answers to all the questions.

Where a written constitution is silent on a particular matter, the drawback will be

filled by custom, convention, etc.

The unwritten nature of the UK constitution:

If the layman knows anything about the UK constitution, it is that is unwritten. As we have already observed, however, this is only correct if we further qualify what we mean to say by unwritten; If we mean that the UK constitution does not exist in documentary form, then the statement is correct. If, however, we mean that the rules of the UK constitution are unwritten, then the statement is incorrect . Several of the principal sources of the UK constitutions are clearly written. Both the Acts of Parliament and the principles of the common law are written law because they have been established by the courts and subsequently reported.

 The altering nature of the UK constitution:

Constitutional change may be gradual and barely perceptible. It may affect some institutions within the constitutional framework to a noteworthy degree while leaving others relatively untouched. Traditionally the development of the UK constitution has been regarded as an incremental evolutionary process. However, this no longer seems to be the case. In the words of Professor King: "Although few people seem to have noticed the fact, the truth is that the United Kingdom's constitution changed more between 1970 and 2000, and especially between 1997 and 2000, than during any comparable period since at least the middle of the 18th century."

YouTube video on Why doesn't the United Kingdom have a written constitution