The trouble with disestablishing the Church of England is, unless they adopt something of constitutional significance ensuring freedom of religion, there remains the chance another church will be established.

And with what we've been seeing going on over there, can we be sure it would be a church, and not a mosque?

Enacting something with constitutional significance is a bit tricky if you don't have an actual constitution.

They have an unwritten constitution; it is based on past precedent and years and years of court decisions.

However, it probably means about as much to them as our "living" constitution does to some Democrats, including judges.

However, it probably means about as much to them as our "living" constitution does to some Democrats, including judges.

Less. Under Tony Blair, the House of Lords has been turned into pretty much a House of People the Last Few Prime Ministers Really, Really Liked and Wanted to Reward with a Title. In effect, it only took a majority vote of the House of Commons to make it happen.

This was the culmination of a trend that began with Life Peerages only a few decades ago, but hereditary peers were the foundation of the House of Lords for centuries, and now they're gone.

The ability to just "evolve" a constitutional principle into non-existence is something certain elements of our American elite have envied for a long time, and the notion of a "living" Constitution was their attempt to bring it about. I don't think they've been altogether successful, fortunately.

Which all just adds to the importance, for the Brits, of preserving Establishment unless and until they adopt a written Constitution that would be as difficult to revise as ours is supposed to be.