Does the United Kingdom have a Constitution?

There is a strong case however for the United Kingdom having a constitution. If we start by looking at the dictionary for ‘Constitutionalism’

The principles that government operates within the understood rules of a constitution. There are devices, usually a strong judicial which will prevent government from operating outside constitutional rules, except in a major emergency

Well, from this definition, we can see no mention of whether the constitution has to be written down in a list, just that the government must follow rules. The rules still exist there in the United Kingdom; just they are not all in one combined volume. Our system also follows the definition, by as well as a judicial system, the parliament can stop government, from operating outside constitutional rules by not voting a particular statue in.

The existence of a constitution is also furthered by the extent that the government follow tradition, and makes it a integral part of the way it operates. For example, in theory the Head of State can veto a law, and abolish parliament, but in practise this has never been carried out. The same goes for the maintenance of the freedom of expression, the primacy of the Cabinet, the weakness of the House of Lords and the independence of the judiciary. In the few exceptions, when this is challenged, there is usually a good reason.

The voting electorate also helps to preserve the constitution in an indirect way. As every 5 years, the government will be judged in an election, and if they have acted in a un constitutional way, which is usually un popular, they will not be re elected back into power. These traditional principles are usually not touched by the government, for fear of loosing power, at the next election, when the electorate can vote again them.

Lastly the British Constitution can be argued to exist, but not as one single codified document, but instead as a series of separate uncodified documents, which take different forms and are constantly developing and evolving. These documents, which make up the constitution, can be put into 6 different groups. The first group is made up of Acts of Parliament, which are written laws which parliament has approved and have given to the law courts to enforce. The next group is called ‘Common Law’ which contains laws made up by judges, during cases and after that, all courts which have a case with similar facts and conditions must give out the same verdict as the original. This gives a basis for the law. The third part of our constitution, are the privileges which the monarch holds, such as taking the country to war and making treaties. In practise however most of these powers are only exercised in the name of the monarch and are passed and debated on by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The forth part of the constitution is much less rigid and formal and is made up of conventions and customs which have developed and are considered to be the appropriate behaviour to follow in given circumstances, another similarly unofficial part of the constitution is the following of works of authority which guides in what to do, whilst settling disputes and uncertainties which the constitution brings up. The two main sources are May’s ‘Parliamentary Practise’ and Dicey’s ‘An Introduction to the study of the constitution’. The last part of the constitution of the United Kingdom, and also the newest are laws which the European Union has passed, and which we must follow, these are very similar to the Acts of Parliament, but instead by Europe.

So, in conclusion although the United Kingdom does not have a rigid codified constitution, which is written in one place, I still think it does have a constitution, which although in theory can be broken, in practise it is solid, and comes from a variety of sources, which cover much more than a codified constitution does and has evolved to match the times which it is needed in, this is arguably a much better system. So yes the United Kingdom does have a constitution, which is uncodified.