Should the United Kingdom write down its constitution?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Famously, the UK has an unwritten constitution (as New Zealand and' to some extent Israel and Saudi Arabia) that consists of a huge bulk of documents, rulings, acts, understandings etc. that are older than the United Kingdom itself; and like the country as a whole is very weird when you look at the details. Any part of the constitution can be changed (technically) by a simple majority vote, so there is no "judicial review" as many other countries have. It just has to swoop through parliament.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

No.

[Blue3]

It's worked for them so far, and shows another way is possible to have a successful liberal democracy with human rights.

[Supersonic]

We can't even agree on the simplest things, let alone a constitution.

[DavidB.]

No, it's good as it is.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I see no reason not too, but the endeavor would be huge and it would be years before such a convention takes place. Still, if I were Cameron, I'd lay the groundwork for it and make it an issue for the next general election (assuming Cameron remains as leader).

[The Last Northerner]

I'm going to eer on the side caution and say no. Parliamentary Supremacy, even over any prior legal document, is a pretty neat idea. I'm more concerned about passing/repealing legislation than bickering over what the 3rd semicolon in clause 4, article 8 means.

Some supporters could argue that it would enshrine certain national values, traditions, and rights in written legal form. Those things aren't dictated by law but instead agreed upon by the citizens . For example, you can technically have a document claiming freedom of expression but if you don't have a culture that celebrates and protect that value than the point is moot. Like having a social contract that nobody follows.

[Phony Moderate]

Yes, with semi-regular amendments etc.