Yes we do. It's uncodified (meaning not all in one document) and in very small part unwritten but we still have one.

This is politically controversial but not in the grand scheme of things a big deal in my view. The anti Brexit groups have been playing hardball with legal and constitutional 'innovations' for some time and now the pro Brexit camp are responding in kind.

It's also worth noting that John Major used this very device in 1997 to avoid scrutiny over the Cash for Questions affair and it's also been used for political purposes recently in Canada.

The rhetoric of the anti Brexit side in the media over this is doing Johnson's work for him - he wants a 'people vs the establishment' election (and he'd likely do very well with that) and people who lost the referendum screaming 'coup' plays right into that narrative.

Boris Johnson is the embodiment of establishment and elite himself.

Voters did not have a chance to vote on what he is doing. It's virtually certain that a majority of voters didn't want this at the time of the referendum, nor do they want it right now.

Beginning with the multiple lies from Johnson and his ilk, and not ending with giving false hope on an extremely beneficial and one-sided deal with the EU.

The question of the referendum was ill posed and completely botched, even without mentioning that Russia also "lend" a hand to the Leave campaign.

Yes, we do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

I think most people think of a constitution as a single document - so in that sense we don't have one.

By definition however, we do. From Google: "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed."

Most people know what I meant. Many may even have figured out that it was a light-hearted jest about the UK's current - yes - constitutional and political struggles.

To be clear, yes they do have some kind of unwritten constitution.

I really don't like the system they arrived at, however they arrived at it. Voting is imbalanced, Elites are more hereditary than in most democracies, and it's harder to enforce what I believe of as Human rights (see surveillance etc). On top of that the political discussion and media is more nasty than most, also.

> I really don't like the system they arrived at, however they arrived at it. Voting is imbalanced, ...

The election of representatives in the UK may be flawed and imbalanced, I agree. But in this case they held a referendum, which cannot in any case be considered as "flawed", the Brexit option won clearly, and now the government has the democratic duty to fulfill the choice taken in the referendum.

Of course the referendum was flawed. The Leave campaign was lying and there was foreign influence. And the question on the ballot was the wrong one.

Most leave-voters don't and didn't want the no-deal total chaos they are getting now.

There is no absolute "duty" to implement any referendum. If the referendum had any other outcome, wouldn't the Leave campaign have lied, bullied and cheated their way to another referendum a few years later?

It's not democratic to ram through your political agenda on the back of a referendum a few years ago, against what the voters want. It's even less democratic to fail to even ask what the voters want now.

both sides lied and both sides relied heavily on foreign influence

I agree, of course, that the handling of the issue by May was a disaster, and Johnson is even worse

It is worth noting that there are multiple legal attempts in the courts (particularly one in the Scottish Court of Session) :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-495...

Scottish court just refused to block the proroguing:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/30/boris-johns...

They have refused to grant an interim interdict - the full case hasn't actually been decided yet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-495...