It is no less real than the American Constitution. What it doesn't have is a single written document (with amendments).
It also lacks a fundamental feature the US Constitution has in being umambiguously final. No other law can supersede it. Interpreting an entire corpus of law as a 'constitution' is grossly inaequate.
> Q16 Chairman: Is the letter to The Times in 1950 under a pseudonym Senex, which we now know is Alan Lascelles, a constitutional document that now guides us?
> Lord Turnbull:In a strange way,it is,yes; people have accepted the logic of the arguments that he put forward.
From https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/...
(Incidentally that letter has been superseded by the Fixed Parliament Act).
In UK, the Parliament is the supreme authority, and can amend that unwritten constitution simply by passing an Act of Parliament, which only requires a simple majority.
In effect, this means that the Parliament is not really bound by the constitution. Which makes it largely useless for the purposes for which it is heavily used and relied upon in US.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution.
> The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
I hope this kind of attitude persists in the US. It's one of the things that continues to give me hope for western style democracy.