Taken from Wiki.
We don't but we sort of do.
The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.
Unlike most other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution. Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.
Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."
Since the Glorious Revolution, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid, particularly in light of the UK's membership of the European Union.
This is the bit I find interesting
There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid, particularly in light of the UK's membership of the European Union.
Now remind me what my parents voted for in the 1970's?
"Free trade agreement" with no plans for closer political or monetary union"
Now a referendum keeps getting mentioned within the politics, but I don't think we will see one within the next 10,15 or 20 years.
To many Former and current politicians on the Euro gravy train.
For today the European Court of Auditors – the body charged with auditing the EU’s accounts – has presented its annual report to the European Parliament and for the 17th – yes, seventeenth – year running, it has concluded that the payments underlying the 2010 accounts are “still affected by material error”.
“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.
“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”
“the degree of non-compliance with the rules governing the spending, such as breaches of public procurement rules, ineligible or incorrect calculation of costs claimed to EU co-financed projects, or over-declaration of land by farmers”.
And that 3.7% error rate is as a proportion of the EU’s annual budget of €122.2 billion (£104.2 billion), which means that serious questions remain about a staggering €4.5 billion (£3.9 billion) of payments which have been made by Brussels – a figure which has increased since 2009.
And the error rate across the “Cohesion, energy and transport” budget alone was no less than 7.7%.
The fact that this happens year after year does not make it any more acceptable. Moreover, it underlines just how outrageous it is that the European Commission is seeking another increase in its budget when there are question marks over billions of its spending.
Anyone who knows the first thing about accounting concepts like material error would find hilarious, the EU is claiming that failing to get their accounts past the auditors yet again is some kind of triumph. They claim that: “For the fourth year in a row, the EU’s annual accounts have received a clean bill of health from its external auditors.”
If a UK Company operated their accounts procedures in the same way as the EU, the Inland Revenue would instigate an investigation and if found guilty the company would be heavily fined and the Directors could face a jail sentence.
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.