Burnham calls for a written constitution after devolution push

Andy Burnham says the UK's lack of a written constitution disempowers Britons, according to GB News and The Independent. The argument follows his devolution agenda as Prime Minister - the case being made is that constitutional certainty would entrench the new settlement.

The phrase doing work here is "written constitution". Britain has a constitution - it is the body of law, convention and precedent that constrains the executive and defines the institutions. What it lacks is codification in a single amendable text. The distinction matters because a written constitution typically includes an amendment formula that sits above ordinary statute, requiring supermajorities or referendums to alter. That raises the question of entrenchment: whether any Parliament can bind a successor, or whether sovereignty remains with the Commons as constituted at any given election.

Every written constitution resolves that tension one way; the British settlement resolves it the other. The current system allows a government with a Commons majority to repeal or amend any prior Act, including constitutional statute, by simple majority. A codified text with an amendment bar would transfer some of that flexibility to a different mechanism - and the mechanism determines who holds the lock.

What to watch: whether the proposal includes an amendment formula, and who it empowers to alter the text once written. That will tell you whether this is about clarity or about moving sovereignty somewhere harder to reach.