Should the UK have a Written Constitution?

[Gmart]

Yes - It is a vast and horrific leftover from history that the rulers having enshrined the relationship between the Monarchy and Government with the Bill of Rights in 1688, that these rulers did not see fit to ensure the relationship between the People and the Government through a written constitution. Further they decided to put out the propaganda that actually we had one, it was just unwritten. That was and is bullshit in the same way as the Parliament website tries to paint 1688 as a Glorious Revolution, when actually it was only glorious for the Rulers who finally tamed the beast that was the Monarchy. Since then the 'Ruled' in this discussion have been tended by the Rulers like cattle and are still ruled as such today. Few rights have been accepted onto the statute books to ensure that the poorest in society are not screwed by the Government, and even fewer are there to ensure that the MP's do not misbehave in our name. The two tier education ensures that this class system maintains itself and that the poor are not educated enough either to notice it or to do anything about it. A constitutional court would greatly facilitate legal issues as well.

No - What is that guy on about! The UK is great and We have a democratic system which is there to ensure that that the people get what they want. There is no need for a constitution because we are free to do everything which is not legislated against. We have a great system of government which is the envy of the world. There is a good education if you want it and work hard for it. The legal system is fine and doesn't need a constitutional aspect. This system has worked for over 300 years and there is no need to change it now.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes.

Whilst I do believe that most of the things which would be in it do actually exist already, clarity would be beneficial (if only by dint of reducing the vast earning potential of lawyers! ).

I also think that the process of drafting it it would be a good exercise in deciding what we really do want / stand for in the UK.

 

[greenman]

Yes. As a Republic

 

[TAE]

Yes. But Blair should not be the one to write it.

 

[Haller]

Yes. But Blair should not be the one to write it.

No. Because neither Blair nor anyone else currently in any position of power is capable of writing such a thing.

 

[Azrael]

I like to conserve what we have unless it's a proven failure, but what we have has failed utterly.

Our current constitution is a medieval fag-end, its theory marooned three centuries in the past when parliament taming monarchs, and not the people taming parliament, was the order of the day. It has allowed the Conservative and Labour Parties to strip-mine our civil liberties. A constitution codifying what we currently have would be useless because we now have so little. A constitution must restore every right stolen from us and introduce every right we never had.

Give me a constitution that restores effective trade union rights, tears down the edifice of unjustified police powers and enshrines freedom of speech and freedom from censorship, and it gets my vote. Use one to make permanent our current failed state and I'll fight the bloody thing tooth and claw.

 

[Gmart]

Just to have the discussion about what should be in it would be progress. At the moment there are too many people who have fallen for the Unwritten propaganda, and will even fight tooth and nail to keep it.

The longer the class division between the rulers and ruled is allowed to continue, the longer we will persist in having such great problems from Education to the trains. It is such a strange country which actually revels in beating the system, when actually the system should reflect and enhance the people.

 

[TonkaToy]

Give me a constitution that restores effective trade union rights, tears down the edifice of unjustified police powers and enshrines freedom of speech and freedom from censorship, and it gets my vote. Use one to make permanent our current failed state and I'll fight the bloody thing tooth and claw.

But aren't you just highlighting why a written consitution will never be practical?

No right winger is going to support a constitution which includes trade union rights. Let's face it, everyone has a different agenda and everyone will try to bring that agenda to any written constitution.

 

[Gmart]

All the more reason to start the debate. Even the right wingers will probably accept that there is a basic right to form an organisation. It would be much better to discuss what rights are needed in a considered, understanding way. If it doesn't work then we can change it later. Labour issues cannot be ignored after all it has to be FOR the people not DESPITE.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No. It'd be leaglistic bullshit with no real purpose and no noticeable benifit.

 

[TonkaToy]

All the more reason to start the debate. Even the right wingers will probably accept that there is a basic right to form an organisation. It would be much better to discuss what rights are needed in a considered, understanding way. If it doesn't work then we can change it later. Labour issues cannot be ignored after all it has to be FOR the people not DESPITE.

Yes, but it's harder to change a constitution than anything else. Remember that's the point of a constitution, laws that are supposed to be there to offer basic rights, that a government can't just come along and reverse.

It's not that I'm against the idea of a constitution. Heck I believe in human rights just as much as the next man, but the it's just that we aren't some new nation nor are we some new rebpublic fresh after a revolution, with a few folk around a table ready to thrash out a new constitution that has laws protecting us from whatever it was that got us so aggrevied that there was a revolution in the first place.

New Labour. The Tories. Lib Dems, Greens anyone...any government will make sure any contsitution works in the interests of their politics or not at all. There is no pressure on them to produce a constitution that's in everyones interests...so they won't.

 

[Yossarian]

I don't think we need to come up with a constitution for the UK alone when there's a perfectly good European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights out there, all we need to do is make the charter legally binding in this country.

 

[TonkaToy]

A rather shit analogy that sums up my feelings on the matter.......

"I've found that a country with roads where people drive on the right...is technically better than a country where people drive on the left. But when you think about it, considerding the amount of effort it would take to restructure so we can drive on the right....it really wouldn't be worth the effort and there are better things to spend our time and money on."

 

[Yossarian]

I think the European charter is better than any constitution the politicians in this country could come up with, although I'm sure the Ukippers would squeal in rage at the very suggestion.

 

[Nigel]

I don't thinkyou've really thought this through enough!!!!!

 

[Gmart]

No. It'd be leaglistic bullshit with no real purpose and no noticeable benifit.

I think we suffer through not having a constitution. As a nation we are obsessed with what we can't do as opposed to what we can.

Also it would once and for all knock the class system on the head by ensuring the rights of the 'little man'. Surely a good thing!!!

 

[Gmart]

A rather shit analogy that sums up my feelings on the matter.......

"I've found that a country with roads where people drive on the right...is technically better than a country where people drive on the left. But when you think about it, considerding the amount of effort it would take to restructure so we can drive on the right....it really wouldn't be worth the effort and there are better things to spend our time and money on."

I don't agree with that analogy. I think we suffer more than just being an the other side. The key thing is that we haven't got one at all. EVERYONE else has one and that alone should hint at its essential nature.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The UK has a Constitution, of course it has. It's written down in lots of places, is what makes it complicated.

There are two parts to the problem.

If what you want to do is CODIFY the present constitution so it's more tidy, fair enough. But it would be very expensive in time and lawyers costs because the legal issues are complicated. Take the Treaty and Acts of Union 1707. This involves two separate legal systems with different fundamental ideas behind them - it would not be straightforward to bring it into a single constitutional code, and it would be politically controversial because many people would see fiddling about as a political threat to rights that supersede the competence of the UK Parliament. Codification would likely change the constitution. It would be more than a tidying-up job. It would be extremely unpopular.

If you want to CHANGE the constitution, also fair enough. But be up front and say so.

I wonder whether people are confusing the notion of a constitution, which is the set of rules, systems and principles which set out how government is operates, with a system for prescribing basic citizens' rights and duties?

On the question of the side of the road people drive on... the correct side is the left side. Perhaps the UK, and Japan, and all the other countries where this technically better approach is used should be more assertive in pressing those countries still stuck with the technically inferior approach of driving on the wrong side to see sense.

 

[gosub]

Remembering back to 97 and Boothroyd and Tony Pandy's involvement with the referendum party, their opposition to euro membership was based on the "no parliament may bind its successors" part of the unwritten constitution.
Therefore wouldn't imposing a written constitution be unconstitutional.

Think no parliament may bind its successors is an an extremely mature approach myself, if we were using a full on written one from say 17th century, we'd probably be seeing arguments about the necessity of everybody who lives in rented accommodation having access to grazing land for their sheep. Bits of paper can't entirely stop the world changing. Our unwritten constitiution means our elected representives have the scope to deal with these changes

 

[Gmart]

Why is it that everyone else has one?

I think the balance between rights and wrongs needs to be addressed.

What is the harm in having such a document?

 

[Genghis Cohen]

Therefore wouldn't imposing a written constitution be unconstitutional.

Only if you let parliament do it and I sure as fuck wouldnt let this lot anywhere near it.

 

[blamblam]

Where's the "who gives a shit?" option?

 

[Gmart]

The third option, didn't you see it?????

 

[Gmart]

What a shame that probably the main reason why the UK cannot move forward on so many subjects, should be allowed to go undiscussed.

It is our archaic system, which needs to be backed up with a Constitutional court to ensure that the little man/woman is not abused. We need to have this discussion NOW, and try and work out what we actually want on a written constitution.

 

[gosub]

So everyone else has got one so we should and it will help the little guy. Tough call do I attck the lemming politics of global standardization or just start pointing to examples with a written constitution where the little guy doesn't really do that well.

Nah, just stick to to the folly of limiting flexibility in an ever changing world and the problems of who would draft and ratify the thing. - there was one bloke, I don't know his name but worked mid to late C19th who could have been up to the job -drafted a lot of laws that worked a seemingly increasingly rare talent.

 

[Mallard]

It's a no from me. Sounds like a pointless cul de sac on a par with abolition of the monarchy neither is a panacea for our problems. Sorting out inequality and getting rid of the culture of careerist unrepresentative polititians would be a better start. A written constitution is not required for this!

 

[Gmart]

I disagree that this is a cul de sac.

For example imagine a giving the population the right to demonstrate in a peaceful way. None of the recent problems would have been able to happen because Brian Haw would have had the right to do so, and the politicians would have had to like it or lump it.

I appreciate the supposed lack of flexibility, but what we are really doing is allowing our government to impose on our rights rather than doing what might need to be done. Too often they are keen to do the bidding of the business sector, or the church, or the US, rather than turning around and saying no. Ensuring that the little people are not forgotten is essential i feel.

Freedom to congregate is a basic in everyone's constitution, but for us we have to phone up the police and ask permission. I appreciate that we have a Ruler/Ruled system, rather than educating everyone with equality of opportunity, and that it has worked for hundreds of years, but i don't think that our culture would fall apart if we had more rights, and we might be able to give our children a reason to cooperate. Has anyone else noticed the apathy which seems to be endemic in our culture?

 

[detective-boy]

Freedom to congregate is a basic in everyone's constitution, but for us we have to phone up the police and ask permission.

As usual you exaggerate wildly ...

 

[Gmart]

So the Criminal Justice Act which stopped all the raves in the early nineties, and stopped us having the right to hire a field and use it for a party, was all in my imagination then?

 

[detective-boy]

I think you'll find that was an awful lot to do with the rights of the owners of property NOT to have fucking great raves imposed upon them if they didn't want them. And people's rights to get a nice nights sleep. And stuff like that.

You may well have an argument about some aspects of that legislation, but, as I said, you exaggerate. Like many who share your position. Which tends to mean that those who disagree with you find it extremely easy to ignore you because you do not appear at all reasonable or logical to the pretty uniterested vast majority you will need to convince of your position if you are actually going to change anything.