You still owe me an apology, Martin.

You seem to not understand what an actual Constitution is, which is fine. I can explain it to you, and maybe not as eloquently as folks at Wikipedia. Yet Wikipedia is not the ultimate source for full understanding because their pages can be controlled by folks with certain ideas in their minds. Particularly the hot-button items can produce colored wiki pages. In other words, the light is not always shun brightly.

Yes, there is a word 'constitution' and it refers to a body, and as such you can say that Britain has a constitution. It has indeed a body, a legal body. But that is just words, monopoly game words. That is not the same as a codified legal body, and, Martin, that actually does make an important legal distinction.

The legal Constitution is also known as the groundlaw in other languages, singular in term, even when it can contain many separate laws. These laws are all or should all be in agreement with one another. No conflicts should be contained in a Constitution.

There is very little second guessing about the groundlaw itself (and that should be: no guessing at all). These nations tend to have a lot fewer lawyers because things are more clear to all people that live in these nations. UK follows Germany (larger nation) and Italy (another not so great democracy in Europe) in number of lawyers. If your nation has an (accurately written) Constitution, then there is a great chance there are not all that many lawyers.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1266198/lawyers-in-europe-by-country/#:~:text=As%20of%202020%2C%20Italy%20was,members%20to%20the%20Bar%20association.

Another very important difference between a body and a groundlaw is that the judges are to place the groundlaw above themselves. They cannot make rulings that are in conflict with any wording in the groundlaw.

Britain 'just' has Case Law, and Case Law puts powers in the hands of judges. Meanwhile, Civil Law, as it is (or can be) called in other nations with a Constitution, puts far less power in the hands of judges and far more in the groundlaw itself.

That is a Constitution, Martin. Britain does not have a Constitution; it has 'just' a body of legal works and judges can make the next iteration of that body.

--

In traffic, the legal situation in the UK is a four-way crossing. It means that judges can cross that four-way intersection, including to the direction where in other nations one of the directions is not available.

In traffic, a Constitution anywhere is the world should mean a T-section, with the T pointing out a limit with the highest location for the judges to judge. They cannot cross into any roadway section 'north of the T', simply because there is no legal roadway there. That is not their territory; they cannot break new grounds. That is left to the politicians, and the politicians cannot create laws that are in conflict with any of the laws already on the books.

The Constitution is the highest legal entity in nations with a Constitution. No judge can touch the area above the Constitution, only below and within the Constitution.

The UK does not have that. And if you ask me, it shows.