Should Britain have a written constitution? POLL

Jacob Rees-Mogg on elections and the constitution in January

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Most countries around the world have a rule book codified in a single document known as a constitution. This sets out fundamental principles of rule and law within a country, making it easy for politicians and lawmakers to refer to in times of uncertainty. However, the UK does not and has never had such a document.

But it does have a constitution of sorts. It’s just written in many different places as opposed to being under a single order. These are known as constitutional statutes.

Examples include the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act, the Northern Ireland Act and Government of Wales Act 1998.

Conventions are also a part of these documents, setting out what is considered normal political discourse in Britain: the Monarch acting on ministerial advice, for example.

Can’t see the poll above? Use this link to vote. 

There is an age-old argument over whether the UK should overhaul its current system and introduce a single codified constitution.

This debate became inflamed under Boris Johnson’s time as Prime Minister when he was found to have broken many of the rules without serious and immediate consequence.

Many argued that the turbulent episode, which saw him later admitting to breaking the law, proved that Britain should have a written constitution.

But what do you think? Should Britain have a written constitution? Vote in our poll.

Source: Read Full Article