[lucozade]

Right, because constitutions don't generally have a mechanism to be amended? And the judiciary in countries with constitutions don't tend to apply constitution to areas that they were clearly never intended e.g. encryption.

The idea that the UK parliament would abolish courts doesn't really need addressing, it's so absurd. I take it you're also aware that we regularly (some would say too regularly) democratically elect parliament? That's usually consider a check if not a balance.

The problem isn't the lack of a UK constitution or any of the other specious arguments. The problem is that a large number of people, very probably the majority, either agree with this idea or simply don't care. At the very least they don't care enough to make it an important issue in a general election and we've just had a couple.

[nsnick]

Even if a large number of people want a particular restriction in the US it does not always become law even if passed by congress. This is never the case in the UK. If the commons passes something it is law. Amending a constitution is generally extremely difficult and requires a very high bar, and has to be approved by the court. It is not just the lack of a constitution that is dangerous in the UK it is the total lack of separation of powers. The courts are not really independent. Parliament passes laws that change how the courts work all the time. The constitutional reform act that created the supreme court of the UK was passed with a simple majority of Parliament, and it can be repealed with a simple majority of Parliament.