Prime Minister Andy Burnham signaled support in July for the United Kingdom to adopt a written, codified constitution [1].
A shift toward a codified constitution would represent a fundamental change in how the UK is governed. It would replace the current system of conventions and statutes with a single, supreme legal document to define the powers of the state, and the rights of citizens.
Burnham said the move is necessary because the current lack of a written constitution "disempowers Britons" [2]. He said that a codified document would provide stronger constitutional safeguards and establish a different approach to governing the country [3].
"The UK needs a written constitution," Burnham said [1].
The proposal comes during a period of significant leadership turnover. Burnham is the seventh prime minister to hold office in 10 years [4].
Legal experts and officials said that codifying the constitution would not be a rapid transition. It would be a years-long process that would likely require a major public inquiry to determine the framework of the new document [5].
Currently, the UK operates under an uncodified constitution, meaning its rules are found across various acts of Parliament, court judgments, and long-standing traditions. This flexibility has historically allowed the UK to evolve without formal amendments, but Burnham said this lack of clarity now serves as a barrier to citizen empowerment [2].
“"The UK needs a written constitution."”
The move toward a written constitution would end centuries of British legal tradition based on precedent and flexibility. By seeking to codify these rules, the Burnham administration is attempting to create a more rigid set of checks and balances, likely in response to the political instability evidenced by the high turnover of prime ministers over the last decade.
