[speerer]

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution:

> The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.

Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com... - a publication from 2015 which considered and proposed a written constitution. But other definitions include unwritten things like customs and conventions. For example:

> It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-cons...

[mathiaspoint]

Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.

[wasabi991011]

The Bill of Rights or the Habeus Corpus meaningfully constrains the states power, and are cited in court proceedings.

Just because it isn't 1 document like in the US, it doesn't mean it's not a constitution.

I think what you mean by "contemporary connotation" with "American connotation".

[marcus_holmes]

In the UK that would probably be the Magna Carta [0] which is a written document that constrains the monarch's power, and the monarch was the state at that time (1215).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[speerer]

Do you mean in the USA, perhaps? It's used more prevalently there, I think it's more likely for an average citizen to refer to a document than a collection of laws and customs. But I don't think that contex overtakes the original meaning.

[qcnguy]

The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court.

The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling back of parts of the British constitution. It would be a good thing because the equivalents of the American Constitution are much more vaguely written, and in practice do nothing to protect anybody's rights whilst allowing left-wing judges to rampantly abuse their position by issuing nonsensical judgments that advance left-wing priorities. That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions, which is in effect a rollback of the Constitution. And this position is very popular.