Does Britain need a constitution?

By Hallie Jeon

Jeremy Purvis, a member of the House of Lords, has introduced a bill that would give Britain a written constitution, if passed.

June 2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. Since June 1215, Britain has never had a written, codified constitution.

In light of the upcoming anniversary, Britons are starting to wonder if they need a written constitution.

The British constitution is embodied in the total of Acts of Parliament, such as written documents, statutes and court rulings.

None of these has the weight of a formally written constitution. However, they do act as the only precedent for the governance of Britain as a non-autocratic government.

Interestingly, Britain has rarely faced the serious challenges of not having a written constitution as the challenges it faces today.

Just last year, the Scottish independence referendum almost split the U.K. in half, and the nation is considering whether to stay in the European Union.

The uncodified constitution creates additional problems. For the most part, it is difficult to figure out what the constitution actually is, which makes it easily amendable. The clashing, unspecified roles of ministers and judicial officials also add to the ambiguity.

Purvis said the U.K. needed to refresh and define itself to survive. "I want there to be something that holds together as Britishness," he said.

"Defenders of Britain's traditional consitution think otherwise. Philip Norton, a member of the House of Lords and a constitutional scholar, said codifying the constitution "would amount to fitting the country with a straitjacket," when it needed to be flexible enough to evolve with changing times.

Anthony King from the University of Essex, warned that a written constitution could deepen the challenges facing Britain.

"The system is unsatisfactory, but it's not ghastly," he said. "We're going to muddle along. Brits pride themselves on that."