# Why the UK parliament doesn't just declare the UK constitutional?

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?

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.

  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).

  5. 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.



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.