@jmo Said
Britain does have a constitution. It may not be a single document, and it may be made up from statutes and and treaties etc, but it is still a constitution.
I think we said pretty much the same thing, there. The Statutes act as a constitution, but aren't one in the precise sense of the word. The difference can be a fine legal point, but they do exist and I think they are important.
A Constitution is:
The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
A Statute is:
1. A law enacted by a legislature.
2. A decree or edict, as of a ruler.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but an addition or amendment to a Constitution can only be carried out by a legal process. Whereas under a Statutory system, the monarch could (in theory at least, if not in actual practice as our monarchy is voluntarily non-political) issue or change laws by Royal Command. The point here being that, although it is unlikely to happen, it is an option we have available to us. One of those little checks and balances that, in theory, could stop Parliament getting too big for its boots.
The European Union has a constitution, and as pro-Europe as I am, I still wouldn't want there to be a fully Federal Europe. We can be a much closer part of Europe without being swallowed up by it.
So I can see where you're coming from, but the differences of our political system are one of the things that I like to keep in my mind when discussing such issues.
I think I spend far too much time around lawyers. LOL.
.