Since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, some observers believe that

the non-legal rules are more important in the United Kingdom than in other countries.
However, even countries that have a written constitution have evolved non-legal laws to
augment their written constitutions.. A significant part of our constitution is now based on our
non-legal standards. As a result, a thorough grasp of the structure and regulation of the
British constitution requires knowledge of Constitutional Conventions. Conventions,
conventions, and usages are sub-categories of non-legal norms. Conventions relating to the
Royal Prerogative, the Cabinet, Parliament, and the Commonwealth are the most common.

In the end, it is the people who are truly the political rulers of the state, and the criteria for
choosing how the Crown's discretionary powers should be exercised are laid down in a series
of tensely expressed conventions. Because of convention, the Crown's discretionary powers,
derived from the royal prerogative, statutes and common law, are used for the benefit of the
electorate. Such rights are rarely exercised in person by the Crown; instead, they are
exercised by Prime Minister and other Crown officials on behalf of His / Her Royal Majesty.

Conventions are designed to ensure that the constitution does not become outdated by
ensuring that it is consistent and able to adapt to changing circumstances. A constantly
evolving constitutional orthodoxy can be accommodated by them. All members of the
executive branch, as well as judges and other public officials in the judiciary, are expected to
adhere to the rules of our constitution. Traditionally, ministers are held accountable to
Parliament for their own actions and those of civil servants in their department, even if the
minister had no knowledge of any dishonesty taking place in the department. A precise
definition of accountability and responsibility has been created, and in 1996, the Public
Service Committee determined that two of the most important parts of ministerial
responsibility are the duty to render an account and the liability to be held accountable. As a
result, the Ministerial Code 2007 currently adheres to these principles. While the convention
of ministerial duty had no precise definition, it gave a capacity to govern political morality,
allowing it be integrated into norms and procedures to ensure that it was used consistently.

Conventions are enforced only by political pressure, whereas laws are enforced by courts and
are subject to legal punishment if they are broken. Another difference between law and
constitutional convention is that law is systematic, whereas each constitutional convention
stands on its own. In the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011, the tradition that the
Government should resign if they are defeated in a vote of confidence was become a law by
Parliament. An agreed upon, stated, or generally accepted collection of norms, social norms,
or criteria, frequently in the form of a custom, is known as a convention. Regulatory
legislation may be established to define or enforce certain sorts of regulations or customs. A
law is a set of rules that a particular country or community acknowledges for the regulation of
its members and which it can enforce by means of sanctions. On the other hand, Only fear of
moral or social estrangement prevents people from adhering to conventions, while laws are
more enforceable due to state machinery. As an administrator, laws are superior than customs
because they are certain, provide administrators the ability to implement, and they frighten
those who want to defy them.

Conventions can always change or even develop, such as the rule that a Member of the House
of Lords could not be the Prime Minister. Sir Alec Douglas Home, who relinquished his title
to the Lords, became Prime Minister. For example, it may be possible for the conventions on
ministerial accountability to be fudged in order to maintain the convention's theoretical
integrity while limiting its coercive power.

In terms of the first repercussion, it's an outcry against unconstitutional conduct. There were
several issues that Margaret Thatcher didn't discuss with her entire cabinet. While other
Cabinet members were required to accept and support decisions made by a "inner cabinet,"
there was no such thing. In the 1980s, Conservative Party members in Britain who opposed
Margaret Thatcher's hard-line policies were referred to as "wets" by opponents. When
Margaret Thatcher created the phrase "weak" in 1979-80, she was referring to a lack of
strength, a lack of resolve, or a willingness to compromise with the Labour Party. Senior
members of the government who were not part of Thatcher's inner circle and who opposed
her stringent monetarist policies meant to combat inflation and her cuts to public spending
were particularly targeted by this designation. A non-Cabinet member of the Cabinet was also
consulted extensively by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Cabinet members,
eroding their support for her decisions and policies, which she did not debate with them in
Cabinet sessions. Cutting taxes, reducing spending, lowering interest rates, strictly regulating
the money supply, and decreasing the regulatory power of the state were all considered "dry"
policies. Huge changes to the country were undertaken by Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher's
solution to the country's economic woes was to undermine the basic foundations of British
business and reform it. There's no mistake about it. Her proposals would have been better if
she had met with cabinet ministers to verify that any potential risks or dangers had already
been explored before they were executed.

The Brexit referendum was not only necessary, but also unavoidable, according to former
British Prime Minister David Cameron. Tories on the right of the Conservative Party have
been wooed by Nigel Farage's U.K. Independence Party, and former Tory leader David
Cameron has been accused of calling a referendum in order to appease Eurosceptic Tories.
For the past two years, David Cameron has kept relatively silent, thinking that prime leaders
who retire should just let their successors take over. To put it another way, if Cameron had
taken the lead in negotiating a Brexit deal, he would have been subject to accusations from
the ultra-Brexiters that he was not totally devoted to the effort. Furthermore, he would have
been blamed by Brexiters for every part of the emerging Brexit calamity, despite the fact that
to any objective spectator, the scenario appeared to be chaotic.

Following a breach of the Constitutional Convention that specified that the Lords should
always bow down to the will of the commons, The Parliament Act 1911 was passed to
prevent such breaches. A commonwealth convention created by an international agreement
can be overturned by British law, as demonstrated in Madzimbamuto V Lardner-Burke.
House of Lords and Commons powers are regulated in accordance with the Parliament Act
1911, which also sets a time limit for Parliament. Unless the House of Commons directs
otherwise, a Money Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons and sent to the
House of Lords at least one month before the session's end will be presented to His Majesty
and will become an Act of Parliament upon the Royal Assent being signified, despite the fact
that the House may have directed otherwise. For all other public legislation (excluding bills
to prolong the maximum term in Parliament) that are passed by two successive parliaments,
they become law if a year has passed between the second reading and third reading, as
required by the Parliament Act 1949, which was passed by the House of Lords in 1949.
Fixed-term contract The Parliament Act 2011 has two measures that could lead to early
general elections. An early general election can only take place under the terms of the Act if a
motion for an early general election is agreed upon by two-thirds of the whole House or
without division; if the Commons does not confirm a new administration within 14 days.

It is possible that a few isolated breaches of the norm may be viewed as exceptions to the rule
and will not have any major implications, such as the famous "agreement to differ" in 1975
when the cabinet voted to stay in the European Economic Community. As Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher served from 1979 until 1989, despite her controversial policies. Nothing
happened to Margaret Thatcher when she was voted out for a few years. She eventually lost
the public's backing, although it took a long time. Lloyd George remained Prime Minister
from 1916 to 1918 despite breaking numerous rules. Lloyd George a self-confessed pacifist,
swiftly emerged as an inspirational war time leader, first as a successful Minister of
Munitions and later as Prime Minister of the Liberal-led wartime coalition. Lloyd George's
decision to work with the Conservatives to oust Herbert Asquith sparked a backlash from
many Liberals. Lloyd George, now in charge of the entire war effort, was widely credited
with securing Britain's victory. He vowed substantial reforms to improve education, health
and transportation. It wasn't certain whether the Conservatives would be willing to implement
the measures he wanted even after he was re-elected. As the leader of the coalition
government, Lloyd George began to reap the benefits that he believed belonged to the man
who had won the war on his country's behalf. Slowly, rumours of his selling peerages to
supplement his own political fund began to spread.
Politics will be thrown into disarray as a result. During his brief premiership, Boris Johnson
suffered his first setback in Parliament when he was defeated in his first vote on his policies.
With no majority, members of Parliament are attempting to stop the administration from
carrying out its declared programme, and Johnson is closing down the legislature for five
weeks at the most critical time in British politics since World War II. Legal challenges are
being filed against the administration, and Conservatives are being tossed out of the ruling
party end-to-end or practically crossing the House of Commons floor to defect from the
Conservative Party.

Conclusion: Conventions are sets of binding rules, which have no legal enforceability but
supplement and enhance the legal rules of the constitution, thus establishing that conventions
exist. Constitutional conventions could perhaps be codified and made lawful. As a result of
their adaptability and flexibility, conventions are capable of altering along with society's
needs. In addition, it appears that their principal worth rests here. It's also possible to make
the case that conventional rules governing major issues should have legal standing and not be
vague or unenforceable. Conventional law would represent a significant and even dangerous
shift in the balance of power between governments, judges, and citizens, if it were to become
law. The constitution of the United Kingdom would be severely restricted if all conventions
were codified and enforced by law. We could instead impose and formalise some of the most
important norms. This begs the question of how conventions should be classified and why
less essential conventions are still valuable. Conventions could also be used to make a 'non-
legal declaration', like in Australia. It's concerning, though, that not all of them have been
agreed upon or are being adhered to.