IN June this year, Britain marks 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta.
Magna Carta, means ‘The Great Charter’, and it is one of the documents adopted as fundamental law in Britain.
Originally issued by King John of England as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, the Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law.
However, the 800th anniversary celebrations of the Magna Carta have sparked new discussions about a codified UK constitution.
Britain has no constitution, either written or formulated.
Unlike the majority of countries, Britain has no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the United Kingdom works.
What Britain has instead is a set of foundational principles that stretch back into the mists of time, like the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights and Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
However, there is debate on the relevance of some of these foundational principles such as the Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus in the 21st century.
Some argue that most of the principles have always been a mess and are no longer relevant.
They opine that most of the 63 clauses granted by King John in Magna Carta dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule.
Supporting the move of a written constitution, a UK cross-party Political and Constitutional Reform committee of MPs chaired by Graham Allen is drawing up proposals to replace Britain’s unwritten constitution with clear written rules that parliament, the political parties, the monarchy, the courts and other institutions would have to abide by.
The committee aims to produce detailed proposals for a written constitutional document by June this year.
Highlighting the weaknesses of the uncodified constitution, Britons say there is no single statement on citizens’ rights and freedom.
As the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling put it: “Most people might struggle to put their finger on where their rights are.”
Labour MP Austin Mitchell has often said the British ‘constitution’ is whatever the government can get away with.
However, British elites speak of their unwritten constitution with pride.
“It is not set out clearly in any one document,” said former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.”
It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: ‘What the Queen enacts in Parliament is law’.
This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge.
Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British ‘constitution’.
Another fundamental principle is that Parliament cannot bind its successors.
No session of Parliament can pass a law that a later session cannot undo.
One could say the first rule of the British ‘constitution’ is that Britain cannot have a constitution.
Other core principles of the British Constitution are often thought to include the rule of law, the separation of government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the existence of a unitary state, meaning ultimate power is held by ‘the centre’ , the sovereign Westminster Parliament.
Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is no longer and will never again be the all-powerful centralised unitary state of the constitutional textbooks.
With one parliament, two legislative assemblies and a high-powered London authority taking powers from the centre, Britain is not the unitary state we were taught about at school.
Nor does the old theory of an undivided Westminster sovereignty conform to the new realities.
In its own sphere the Scottish Parliament holds undisputed power and its decisions are not overruled by Westminster.
The idea of parliamentary sovereignty has taken a bashing because referendums, reflecting popular sovereignty, are now in effect required before important constitutional decisions are made.
The United Kingdom is battling powerful historical trends.
British Prime Minister, David Cameron is riding into the 2015 election campaign promising to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights that would give Britain more control over the laws that it implements.
Cameron’s promise to finally fulfill one of the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto commitments: to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act, restore the sovereignty of Parliament against the “mission creep” of the unelected judges at the European Court, and enact a ‘British Bill of Rights’ more properly rooted in ‘British values’.
However, in its report the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee opine that only a written constitution would give Britain control over its laws.
“Should the UK move towards a codified constitution, one way of addressing the question of what powers the judiciary should have if they held a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, would be to introduce the concept of a ‘declaration of unconstitutionality’,” reads the report published in December last year.
“This could work in the same way as the declaration of incompatibility used under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for situations in which UK legislation is held to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.” 
How long will Britain object to a modern, codified international standard?
It is time for Britain to join the rest of world and adopt a constitution that can actually be seen, interpreted and amended.
Things have changed since Magna Carta in 1215.