Does the Brexit crisis show Britain needs a written constitution?

The prorogation of parliament has raised new questions about whether an unwritten constitution is fit for purpose, writes Andrew Grice

Former PM Gordon Brown has condemned Boris Johnson’s tactics (PA)

Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, has accused Boris Johnson of “shredding the constitution” of the UK after he suspended parliament for five weeks. Experts say the political crisis over Brexit is not yet a constitutional crisis, but it could soon become one. Recent events have revived a debate over whether the UK needs to codify a largely unwritten constitution, which makes it unusual among democratic countries even though it invented parliamentary democracy.

Only New Zealand and Israel have an “unwritten constitution”. Parts of the UK’s arrangements are written down – the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; the legislation setting up devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the cabinet manual and the ministerial and civil service codes. The system relies on politicians to respect conventions and legal precedent. But supporters of reform argue that the current crisis has highlighted the need for a constitutional commission.

At its heart would be the relationship between referendums and representative democracy: does the 2016 referendum result justify a no-deal Brexit, or should parliament decide the terms? A review would also look at the relationship between parliament and the government, which is about to be strained when MPs return from their summer break on Tuesday. It would include ministers’ use of the royal prerogative – powers exercised on behalf of the monarch without parliament’s authority. They allowed Mr Johnson to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament and gave her no option but to take his advice. A vexed question is whether military action should be approved in advance by parliament. A highly topical one is whether a prime minister should resign after losing a no-confidence vote.