The House of Lords works in the UK, why change it?

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - separation of powers, moves House of Lords Appellate Committee functions to the new UK Supreme Court, and makes the Lord Chancellor a more ceremonial function, also creating a speaker for the House of Lords. The Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998 - creates subordinate legislatures in Scotland and Wales. The Human Rights Act 1998 - enshrines the European Conventions on Human Rights in to UK domestic law.

The European Communities Act 1972 - a direct challenge to the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, incorporates EU law into UK law and makes it supreme. EU law cannot be overturned without express repeal of this Act. It has been deemed to be incapable of implied repeal by the courts.

These are the major recent constitutional statutes. You are right that the absence of a document labelled "The Constitution" does not in itself suggest no constitution exists, merely that it is fragmented and has more sources that a single document. The overarching principle of the rule of law, previously fleetingly referred to in case law, and before that in academic works by the likes of AV Dicey, now get a mention in statute, in S1 Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

The other overarching principle of the UK constitution has been the sovereignty of Parliament, or the supremacy of Parliament. The idea that Parliament can make, or repeal, whatever law it likes and that its statutes will be enforced by the courts. This is challenged by the European Communities Act 1972 which instructs UK courts to give full effect to all current and future EU legislation even where to do so effectively nullifies Parliament's own laws or the common law.

We know from subsequent cases that a UK court must not presume that a new law which contradicts existing EU law impliedly repeals that law or the ECA1972. The Act is not capable of implied repeal. Though Parliament could expressly and unambiguously repeal it if it wished.

In the US the Supreme Court can strike down legislation incompatible with the constitution. UK courts cannot do this. The courts must give full effect to Parliament's laws no matter what (unless it contravenes EU law) even if that law is repugnant.

However, since the HRA 1998, although the courts have no other power of review of legislation, the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility, declaring a law incompatible with the HRA. Though even in that scenario, the court must still give full effect to the law. It merely instructs the government to put right the problem.

The devolution acts ie the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act - these acts set up devolution in Scotland and Wales in 2 steps. First there was a referendum, then elections to the new legislatures. Insofar as these bodies exist because they are created by statute in the UK Parliament, they are subordinate to it, and repeal of the Scotland Act or GWA would effectively scrap those bodies and render their legislation, which is also deemed as secondary legislation, void.

However, given that those bodies had a democratic mandate, not only in their creation, but in their election, then we can consider these Acts, in today's climate, as being "entrenched". Unlike in the 18th Century, when the Acts of Union scrapped a Scottish Parliament, the democratic mandates of today would make it politically and constitutionally impossible to repeat. It would be legal to do so.

But I wouldn't like to see the results of such a move.

I don't think Britain has a written constitution.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.