Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution,

and does it matter?

Introduction
The constitution of the United Kingdom is the sum of laws and principles that make up
the body politic of the United Kingdom. It concerns both the relationship between the individual
and the state, and the functioning of the legislature, the executive and judiciary. Unlike many
other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by
stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution.
Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court
judgements, works of authority and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources,
including parliamentary constitutional conventions.
Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, 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. There is some debate
about whether this principle remains valid, particularly in light of the UK's membership in
the European Union.

Why don't they have a written constitution?

Essentially because the country has been too stable for too long. The governing elites of
many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions
in response to popular revolt or war.
Great Britain, by contrast, remained free of the revolutionary fervour that swept much of
the Continent in the 19th century. As a result, this country's democracy has been reformed
incrementally over centuries rather than in one big bang. For younger countries, including the
United States and Australia, codification of their citizens' rights and political systems was an
essential step towards independence. Ironically, several based their written constitutions on
Britain's unwritten version.

What do their rights depend upon?

Britain's constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case
law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European legislation. It is not set out clearly in
any one document: "The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and
habits as much as it does in law."
Nor is there a single statement of citizens' rights and freedom. As the Justice Secretary
put it: "Most people might struggle to put their finger on where their rights are."

What about the Magna Carta?

When the barons forced King John in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta, it was an event that
would reverberate through constitutional law eight centuries later.
The landowners were driven by a desire to protect their own interests rather than those of
the people. But the resulting document, which has no legal force today in this country, was a key
inspiration for the architects of the US constitution.
It has had huge symbolic value in the development of Western-style democracy in that it
limited state powers and protected some citizens' rights. Its key principles, including the right to
a fair trial by one's peers and protection from unlawful imprisonment, have underpinned
common law.

What other constitutional landmarks have there been?

The Bill of Rights of 1689, which followed the accession of William and Mary to the
throne after the "glorious revolution" bolstered the powers of parliament and, by extension, the
rights of the sovereign's subjects. They included freedom from taxes imposed by the monarch
and from being called up in peace-time to serve in the army without Parliament's permission.
The Great Reform Act of 1832, which vastly increased the number of adult males entitled
to vote in elections, is widely seen as the starting-point for establishing the sovereignty of
citizens over parliament. It set in train the process that led to the Representation of the People's
Act of 1928, which gave all men and women over the age of 21 the right to vote.
Then there was Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, which
brought the country for the first time under a degree of international judicial control.
Ten years ago Britain came closer than before to codifying individuals' rights when the
Human Rights Act enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

What are the advantages of a written constitution?

It has become almost a truism that British politics, beset by cynicism about politicians
and undermined by falling turn-outs at general elections, is in crisis.
Supporters argue that producing such a document could tackle such disillusionment, at
the same time as setting new, clear limits on the power of the executive. The Liberal Democrats
have called for the public to be involved in drawing up the constitution. They say: "This would
reform and reinvigorate the democratic process, putting individuals back in control instead of the
wealthy, large businesses and the unions."

And what are the disadvantages?

"It it ain't broke, don't fix it," argue opponents of a written constitution, who insist that
the existing arrangements, however piecemeal their development has been, have worked well in
practice. There are, moreover, formidable practical problems to be overcome before such a
document could be drawn up. Would it be wide-ranging and largely abstract or would it list
individuals' rights in detail and provide an exhaustive summary of Britain's constitutional
settlement? If the latter, it could prove beyond the grasp of most of the citizens it would be
designed to protect.

What happens next?

Britain is not going to get the ground-breaking document any time in the near future. Any
attempt to encapsulate Britain's constitutional arrangements in a single document should be done
on a "bipartisan, consensual" basis over a period as long as 20 years. Also, a national referendum
would have to be held to approve the document if it ushered in significant changes.
Professor Robert Hazell, the director of the Constitution Unit at University College
London, predicted Britain would never get a written constitution. "Constitutions don't get written
in cold blood." Nick Herbert, the shadow Justice Secretary, was equally sceptical. "The last thing
Britain needs, with 2,000 years of history behind us, is more of New Labour's blind
constitutional vandalism," he said.

Finally, do they need a written constitution?

Yes...

Britain's arcane hotch-potch of freedoms and rights cannot be defended in the 21st
century
It could help citizens clarify their rights and protect themselves against the state
Most flourishing democracies base their institutions on a written constitution

No...

The system should not be tampered with as it has served Britain well for centuries
The practical problems over what to include and leave out would be a logistical
nightmare
It could undermine the power of Parliament to scrutinise ministers on behalf of the public

Pop Catalin-Daniel
Facultatea de Drept, UBB
Anul 1, Seria 2, Grupa 114