[speerer]

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution:

> The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.

Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com... - a publication from 2015 which considered and proposed a written constitution. But other definitions include unwritten things like customs and conventions. For example:

> It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-cons...

[mathiaspoint]

Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.

[wasabi991011]

The Bill of Rights or the Habeus Corpus meaningfully constrains the states power, and are cited in court proceedings.

Just because it isn't 1 document like in the US, it doesn't mean it's not a constitution.

I think what you mean by "contemporary connotation" with "American connotation".

[marcus_holmes]

In the UK that would probably be the Magna Carta [0] which is a written document that constrains the monarch's power, and the monarch was the state at that time (1215).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[mathiaspoint]

That's my point though. The monarch has so little power now it's irrelevant and the democratic government is out of control.

[speerer]

Do you mean in the USA, perhaps? It's used more prevalently there, I think it's more likely for an average citizen to refer to a document than a collection of laws and customs. But I don't think that contex overtakes the original meaning.

[vinay427]

The GP comment specifically refers to the contemporary connotation, and at least in English there is some consensus around constitutional governments in this modern sense (e.g. Ireland, India, Germany, etc.) as opposed to those that aren’t.

[qcnguy]

The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court.

The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling back of parts of the British constitution. It would be a good thing because the equivalents of the American Constitution are much more vaguely written, and in practice do nothing to protect anybody's rights whilst allowing left-wing judges to rampantly abuse their position by issuing nonsensical judgments that advance left-wing priorities. That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions, which is in effect a rollback of the Constitution. And this position is very popular.

[gambiting]

>> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government

It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit.

Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was given to a foreign government borders on Russian trolling, it's just so extremely untrue.

>>And this position is very popular.

Which one? And with whom?

[qcnguy]

Both Eurosceptics and pro-federalists routinely claim that 80% of all European law originates at the EU Commission - the exact number surely depends on the precise definition of law, but if both sides of this argument agree on a number as high as 80% then summarizing it as "most" is the right wording.

And if 80% of your law is coming from the EU Commission, then it's correct to say most power was given up to a foreign government. Because the EU is a government, according to its own fiercest proponents.

>> That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions.

> Which one? And with whom?

All of them. You may have noticed he won the referendum to leave the EU and now his party is the most popular party in Britain according to the polls, largely due to his policy of leaving the ECHR too.

The European institutions are captured by an ideology that there can be no compromises on mass migration ever. This position is insane so they can't win votes on this platform, and therefore their strategy is to abuse various supra-national institutions that were sold to the public as doing other things and then written into the constitution so their decisions can't be overruled.

[gambiting]

>>And if 80% of your law is coming from the EU Commission, then it's correct to say most power was given up to a foreign government. Because the EU is a government, according to its own fiercest proponents.

The crucial part you are missing here is that EU Commission doesn't set laws in any EU member country. They set directives, which if approved by the elected EU Parliment every member country should implement as they see fit - or not implement at all, the penalty for not doing so is so laughable even smaller newer EU members routinely ignore it. UK has always had that power - if it chose to implement EU laws within its own legislative framework then it was by choice and it wasn't forced upon it. So no, no power was given away to any foreign government here, just like British parliment isn't giving away any power to anyone when it uses one of its own many comissions to draft legislation. This is the lie that people like Farage kept peddling here - that anything has been forced on the UK in this relationship, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

>> largely due to his policy of leaving the ECHR too.

Citation needed, seriously. To me it seems it's largely due to Tory party self imploding(finally) and Labour being completely incompetent and walking back on most of their own promises which angered a lot of people. I bet most Reform supporters wouldn't even know what ECHR is, nor do I see why it should matter to them - in all of 2024 ECHR has issued exactly one rulling against the UK, and it was about Daily Mail winning a case against the UK government. If anything they should love it, but of course there's still some idiotic propaganda about ECHR blocking deportations and such when in reality the UK government is just simply incompetent on that front and cannot agree a simplest deal with France on that topic.

>>The European institutions are captured by an ideology that there can be no compromises on mass migration ever.

Which is why this is such a debated topic within the EU all the time and countries are implementing their own laws around it, right? You say it like there's some dogma that has to be obeyed - which anyone can see is not true, with major fractures along this exact point within the EU itself.

>>and then written into the constitution

Which consitution? EU doesn't have one, and I don't recall anything being added to the consitution of my native country for a very long time now - where exactly are these things you speak of written into?

>>so their decisions can't be overruled.

EU doesn't have any insitution that "cannot be overruled". Every member state retained full legislative and judiciary independence from every EU institution. ECHR is a sole exception to this, but it's not an EU insitution, and again, there are no real penalties for ignoring it nor does it have any impact on a country like the UK.

[traceroute66]

> UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to.

And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table.

The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.

[qcnguy]

If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying.

In reality the exceptions were mostly a work of fiction. For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law. Then the EU did that anyway, so the UK got a "carve out" written into the treaties, and it was reported as such to the public. Then the ECJ ruled that it wasn't allowed to have such a carveout and would have to enforce ECHR and ECJ rulings on human rights anyway.

In other words: people were lied to. There was no carveout, not even when every country signed a treaty that spelled out one clear as day. This is how the EU rolls.

[gambiting]

>>If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying.

Having the best deal out of all members states in a union is a reason to leave that union? Are you even listening to what you say, or do you just say it so quickly it doesn't process? If you negotiate with your employer to have the best working conditions of everyone at your company, according to you that's the reason to leave - why? You tell me.

>>For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law.

Can you give a specific example of a human right principle that wasn't suited to be a law please?

[Chris2048]

> the UK had the very best seat at the table.

> The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions

The EU had many things that didn't benefit the UK, which happens when you don't share a mainland with the rest of Europe. e.g. Schengen area didn't make as much sense for UK,

The UK got to not adopt the euro, but then it's currency was particularly strong in the first place. The Rebate is usually what is spin as the great advantage given to the UK, but was mostly justified by the fact that the UK didn't benefit as much from agricultural subsidies.

[foldr]

The Schengen area is only loosely connected to the EU. Not all EU member states are in the Schengen area, and not all Schengen area member states are in the EU.