Replies

A nation can have both a written constitution and a monarchy - Australia does with basically the same monarchy in place. But the question is, whether a written constitution serves any necessary purpose - and whether it might have negative consequences.

For example, let’s look at the issue of civil rights. For the most part, the UK (and Australia, for that matter) is among the freest nations on Earth, with a wide variety of rights guaranteed under common law (part of the unwritten constitution). It’s not perfect (gun rights being a commonly cited example of this) but it is pretty good. Would seeking to write down these rights improve matters - or simply fix in place current prejudices for all time?

Then there is the issue that Britain’s unwritten Constitution (and some parts of the written documents that form part of it) also impacts other nations. Writing down a British consitution could effect a lot more than just the UK.

One example - the Statute of Westminster of 1931 - in many ways, the document that changed the Empire to the Commonwealth. This is now part of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom and the Dominions (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand - and arguably another dozen Commonwealth Realms as well). It has had effects on the Dominions - for example, in the case of Australia, it prevented the secession of the state of Western Australia in 1933. It also meant that the British government failed in its attempts to resolve the Abdication Crisis in 1936, because potential solutions were unacceptable to the Dominions (at that time, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland) and the Statute required their consent.

In other words writing down part of the Constitution meant the UK had to cede some authority over the Monarchy to others. It gave the Dominions equal status in law, which was good for them... but was it good for Britain?

It makes it all very complicated.