New photographs celebrate Queen and Prince Philip's 70th wedding anniversary

[Denzil_DC]

37. Yes, we do have a constitution.

Britain's unwritten constitution

Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta’s place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written constitution.

For most people, especially abroad, the United Kingdom does not have a constitution at all in the sense most commonly used around the world — a document of fundamental importance setting out the structure of government and its relationship with its citizens. All modern states, saving only the UK, New Zealand and Israel, have adopted a documentary constitution of this kind, the first and most complete model being that of the United States of America in 1788. However, in Britain we certainly say that we have a constitution, but it is one that exists in an abstract sense, comprising a host of diverse laws, practices and conventions that have evolved over a long period of time. The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown following the forcible replacement of King James II (r.1685–88) by William III (r.1689–1702) and Mary (r.1689–94) in the Glorious Revolution (1688).

From a comparative perspective, we have what is known as an ‘unwritten constitution’, although some prefer to describe it as ‘uncodified’ on the basis that many of our laws of a constitutional nature are in fact written down in Acts of Parliament or law reports of court judgments. This aspect of the British constitution, its unwritten nature, is its most distinguishing characteristic.

...

The Monarchy is one of the three components of Parliament (shorthand for the Queen-in-Parliament) along with Commons and Lords. In legal theory, the Queen has absolute and judicially unchallengeable power to refuse her assent to a Bill passed by the two Houses of Parliament. However, convention dictates the precise opposite and in practice she automatically gives her assent to any government Bill that has been duly passed and agreed by Parliament. Another important convention is that government ministers must have a seat in Parliament (and, in the case of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, specifically in the House of Commons) in order to hold office. This is a vital aspect of what is known as the ‘Westminster system of parliamentary government’, providing a direct form of executive responsibility and accountability to the legislature.

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

The article goes into great detail about it.

A vast amount relies on convention - in this case, "That’s how we’ve always done it". The whole legal system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (unlike that of Scotland or other European countries founded on a different system of law) is firmly based on precedent (a term related to "convention", with overlapping meanings).

It goes well beyond "cultural", unless you're going to stretch that term to the extent that it has no meaning in this context.

It doesn't make it easy to amend. We don't have specific Articles that can be debated, amended or repealed. It's all perfused throughout the system, which is what I pointed out above.