Should the UK have a Written Constitution?

[Gmart]

Bagshot put forward many of the greatest problems with not havinga written constitution 150 years ago, and it has been ignored by our rulers ever since.

Meanwhile accepting other people in society is what tolerance is about. The farmers were quite happy to get money for one nights rave. The middle class just didn't like what it looked like.

 

[jæd]

Bagshot put forward many of the greatest problems with not havinga written constitution 150 years ago, and it has been ignored by our rulers ever since.

150 years ago bearing arms was tended to be thought of as a basic right. And the idea of two strapping lads (or ladesses) to be a wrong.

How times change, eh...?

 

[gentlegreen]

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#14

Hey look - George Bush senior should have been booted out for supporting Bin Laden and his mates

 

[scifisam]

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!!!

Why do you assume it would do that, though? It certainly wouldn't be the 'little man' writing it.

The problem with a written constitution is that it's even more inflexible than and unwritten one. Society's needs change faster than one piece of paper can keep up with.

 

[detective-boy]

Meanwhile accepting other people in society is what tolerance is about. The farmers were quite happy to get money for one nights rave. The middle class just didn't like what it looked like.

Yes. But it is not one way. As that paragraph graphically illustrates you believe it to be.

 

[Gmart]

Well the Middle Class got their way as ever, and now all raves are illegal which alienates that part of society. It is indeed not one way as you say but more often than not it is Middle England which succeeds in imposing authoritarianism with the kids ignored as irrelevant.

One of the most obvious problems was fear of drugs.

One of the rights i would argue for (on the written constitution, the subject of this thread) would be that the individual has the right to choose what he or she puts into his or her body.

But then again i would seeing as i don't like having such an over developed Nanny State, with the Rulers imposing authoritarianism on the Ruled rather than advising from an informed standpoint.

 

[kakuma]

tbh i don't think it would change anything

america has a written constitution but they don't respect it, it's just a gesture....

 

[detective-boy]

It is indeed not one way as you say but more often than not it is Middle England which succeeds in imposing authoritarianism with the kids ignored as irrelevant.

An entirely valid point, particularly in relation to the perceived disenfranchisment of the young. I would welcome voting at age 16 years (preferably accompanied by improved education about the alternatives available). And there is way too much classism in our "establishment" (witness the recent stuff about percentages of public school backgrounds in judges, politicians, etc.). I suspect much of this comes from the continuing strength of our two / three party system which makes it very difficult for small parties and nigh on impossible for independents in politics.

 

[Stigmata]

tbh i don't think it would change anything

america has a written constitution but they don't respect it, it's just a gesture....

The Soviet Union had a decent one too I think. A constitution is worthless under a bad government, and unnecessary under a good one. The only people who'd really definitely benefit are lawyers.

 

[Nigel]

Why do you assume it would do that, though? It certainly wouldn't be the 'little man' writing it.

The problem with a written constitution is that it's even more inflexible than and unwritten one. Society's needs change faster than one piece of paper can keep up with.

I could'nt agree more.
If you want a more democratic libertairian society a written constitution is the last thing you need.

if you want to get to a stage were customary law rather than state control is the order of the day then the codes and practices of our unwritten constitution is far better than the totality that they have in the united state.

You need a withering away of state institutions rather than 'New Labours' nanny state having more power.

Soon you won't be able to have a wank without a canmera pointing through your window, and being taxed or fined for it

 

[Azrael]

america has a written constitution but they don't respect it, it's just a gesture....

England abolished double jeapoardy. America couldn't. England curtailed the right to silence. America couldn't. English police can search people's houses without warrants. American police can't.

Or if you want a system closer to our own: English police can steal DNA from people arrested for the pettiest misdemeanours and keep it indefinitely. Canadian police need a warrant and face jail if they don't destroy it once the investigation is done.

Some people here see a constitution as failing at something it was never intended to achieve. It won't sort out the inequalities of society or make politicians better people. The idea was never designed for that. But it will put real, practical restraints on the power of the state over the individual.

 

[Nigel]

England abolished double jeapoardy. America couldn't. England curtailed the right to silence. America couldn't. English police can search people's houses without warrants. American police can't.

Or if you want a system closer to our own: English police can steal DNA from people arrested for the pettiest misdemeanours and keep it indefinitely. Canadian police need a warrant and face jail if they don't destroy it once the investigation is done.

Some people here see a constitution as failing at something it was never intended to achieve. It won't sort out the inequalities of society or make politicians better people. The idea was never designed for that. But it will put real, practical restraints on the power of the state over the individual.

Or incrase it even more.
Slavery, Prohibition, Capital/Corporal Punishment & Having One Of The Largest Prison Populations In The World Are/Were all acceptable under USA's Written Constiution.

What would happen if the Rowe v's Wade decision is revoked, and the termination of Pregrancies and Stem Cell Research is Stopped. Which could quite easily happen without much chance in the short term of changing such a ruling.

Without a flexible process of checks and balances the rigidity of the state could become stifleing.

One of the most ingenious ways to stop violations of Human & Civil Rights is through the Judicary HRA/ECHR(based on the Jurisprudence of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights & The Geneva Convention) and through a more open Legislative.

 

[Azrael]

Or incrase it even more.
Slavery, Prohibition, Capital/Corporal Punishment & Having One Of The Largest Prison Populations In The World Are/Were all acceptable under USA's Written Constiution.

That's an argument for expanding the constitution, not abolishing it.

What would happen if the Rowe v's Wade decision is revoked, and the termination of Pregrancies and Stem Cell Research is Stopped. Which could quite easily happen without much chance in the short term of changing such a ruling.

Roe v. Wade: a decision that would never be there to be revoked it if wasn't for the constitution! Would not having a constition somehow help stemcell research/abortion rights?

Without a flexible process of checks and balances the rigidity of the state could become stifleing.

We've got a "flexible" system; so flexible Labour can rip through our entire constitutional framework in less than a decade. A government unrestraiend by a rigid framework is a damn sight more "stifling" than a written constitution.

One of the most ingenious ways to stop violations of Human & Civil Rights is through the Judicary HRA/ECHR(based on the Jurisprudence of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights & The Geneva Convention) and through a more open Legislative.

Erm, the Euro court process works via a written constitution.

Not sure what you're advocating here. For civil liberties/human rights to be a meaningful restraint on government, legislation has to be struck down if it's incompatible. Therefore the courts need a written code to weigh it against.

 

[gosub]

England abolished double jeapoardy. America couldn't. England curtailed the right to silence. America couldn't. English police can search people's houses without warrants. American police can't.

Or if you want a system closer to our own: English police can steal DNA from people arrested for the pettiest misdemeanours and keep it indefinitely. Canadian police need a warrant and face jail if they don't destroy it once the investigation is done.

Some people here see a constitution as failing at something it was never intended to achieve. It won't sort out the inequalities of society or make politicians better people. The idea was never designed for that. But it will put real, practical restraints on the power of the state over the individual.

No it will furthur enshrine the powers already on the statue book and make it harder to change them, one way or the other depending on how future generations seek to develop society (which should be down to them).

I think this thread is actually getting better as its going along ("we should coz every one else does" is a not even wrong arguement) and getting close to being topical. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/ is unconstitutional I would say anyway, but unconstitutional under our unwritten one because how could future parlaiment wrestle it from the government.

 

[Azrael]

No it will furthur enshrine the powers already on the statue book and make it harder to change them, one way or the other depending on how future generations seek to develop society (which should be down to them).

As I said right at the beginning of the thread, I wouldn't support such a constitution.

But by their very nature, bills of rights extend the rights of the individual not the state. The trend abroad shows states don't try to harness constiutions for their own ends, they try to undermine them. Check out Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to see how the right government can be used to introduce a positive constitution.

Right now our freedoms are easy to abolish. A bill of rights is the enemy of repressive government, not its tool. I find it baffling so many here oppose the best means of limiting state power.

 

[gosub]

Was going to say can't one getting one past that undermines the current position but thinking harder, its happened frequently with implementation of EU stuff. Following on to bill of rights, the closest we have or had was/is magna carta which was I understand partially infringed by what was agreed in Treaty of Nice (deportation without UK hearing, into corpus jurus systems [that off the top of my head, EUsceptic stuff not the most enjoyable to trawl through to understate it], anyway like then speaker and former speakers objections to the EUro it was ignored. As the redress was for various named titles being able to raise an army against the crown wasn't really HMG's problem - as stigmata said "A constitution is worthless under a bad government, and unnecessary under a good one."

I did think the whole area was a dead end as I said earlier, but may well grow out of the the horse trading on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Lords are calling for ring fences at least. Personally I wouldn't give Bliar the satisifaction of having done anything that could last the 1000 years he talked of in the early days - it wouldn't be fair to our descendents.

Dark days ahead though, and I'm not just talking post summer solstice.

 

[Azrael]

Was going to say can't one getting one past that undermines the current position but thinking harder, its happened frequently with implementation of EU stuff. Following on to bill of rights, the closest we have or had was/is magna carta which was I understand partially infringed by what was agreed in Treaty of Nice (deportation without UK hearing, into corpus jurus systems [that off the top of my head, EUsceptic stuff not the most enjoyable to trawl through to understate it], anyway like then speaker and former speakers objections to the EUro it was ignored. As the redress was for various named titles being able to raise an army against the crown wasn't really HMG's problem ...

OK, I see your point, but the EU move wasn't a constitution or bill of rights, it was a treaty.

Language is getting muddled here, and I'm as guilty as anyone. Most people are debating a bill of rights. Not the same as a constitution. A constitution simply codifies how a country is governed. It doesn't necessarily protect individual rights. (Ie, Eire has a written constitution without a bill of rights.) A bill of rights is just that: protection of individual freedom.

The EU move wouldn't be included. Restraints on it would be.

... as stigmata said "A constitution is worthless under a bad government, and unnecessary under a good one."

All government is bad government. Trusting the state to be bound solely by its own good intentions is madness. It's like expecting a law to be obeyed without a penalty. Not only that, it's exactly the logic that underpinned kingship.

A bill of rights is essential under bad government -- Bush would be much worse without one -- and helps create decent government by embedding an expectation of rights in citizens' minds.

I did think the whole area was a dead end as I said earlier, but may well grow out of the the horse trading on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Lords are calling for ring fences at least. Personally I wouldn't give Bliar the satisifaction of having done anything that could last the 1000 years he talked of in the early days - it wouldn't be fair to our descendents.

Dark days ahead though, and I'm not just talking post summer solstice.

Here I agree, I don't want Labour having fuck all to do with drafting a written constitution. But a different government: absolutely. All government is bad, but not as bad. Some governments can be pressured into doing the right thing.

 

[gosub]

OK, I see your point, but the EU move wasn't a constitution or bill of rights, it was a treaty.

Language is getting muddled here, and I'm as guilty as anyone. Most people are debating a bill of rights. Not the same as a constitution. A constitution simply codifies how a country is governed. It doesn't necessarily protect individual rights. (Ie, Eire has a written constitution without a bill of rights.) A bill of rights is just that: protection of individual freedom.

The EU move wouldn't be included. Restraints on it would be. .

Granted it could get confusing as the Nice was where they stated discussing an EU consitution (which isn't really a constitution as most people think of it but didinclude human rights act as part of it (just to make it more messy)). Point , again from recollection Magna Carta was Uk which was undermined not specifically by the ToN but the ratiffication of it through the Westminster Parliament

All government is bad government. The power of state should never be trusted. It's like expecting a law to be obeyed without a penalty.

A bill of rights is essential under bad government -- Bush would be much worse without one -- and helps create decent ones by embedding an expectation of rights in citizens' minds.

Here I agree, I don't want Labour having fuck all to do with drafting a written constitution. But a different government: absolutely. All government is bad, but not as bad. Some governments can be pressured into doing the right thing.

Then you are back to snags already pointed out. That 1000 days to prepare for 1000 years always bugged me, and the pundits say he wants a legacy

 

[Cadmus]

Yes, but it's harder to change a constitution than anything else.

Well yes, but the potential UK constitution could never be a rigid document which is hard to change. The concept of entrenchment simply cannot exist in UK law cos of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

The problem with a written constitution is that it's even more inflexible than and unwritten one. Society's needs change faster than one piece of paper can keep up with.

I disagree. The constitution is meant to be a unique code of basic principles, not detailed provisions. And basic principles do not change that fast - quite on the contrary, some have been constant for centuries without any hint of change. Having a written constitution and codifying them wouldn't "create" them, as they already do exist, but would make them enforceable in a court of law and courts would be required to offer protection for them. It would also formally award them superior legal force in comparison to provisions of "regular" acts.

might be back later to add some more, gotta rush now.

 

[Azrael]

Well yes, but the potential UK constitution could never be a rigid document which is hard to change. The concept of entrenchment simply cannot exist in UK law cos of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Not the case. Parliament can surrender its own sovereignty. If it doesn't a bill of rights isn't worth the parchment it's written on: just witness how they disregard chunks of the Human Rights Act when it suits them.

Canada had an identical notion of parliamentary sovereignty but it entrenched its Charter.

I disagree. The constitution is meant to be a unique code of basic principles, not detailed provisions. And basic principles do not change that fast - quite on the contrary, some have been constant for centuries without any hint of change. Having a written constitution and codifying them wouldn't "create" them, as they already do exist, but would make them enforceable in a court of law and courts would be required to offer protection for them. It would also formally award them superior legal force in comparison to provisions of "regular" acts.

Basic principals and detailed provisions are not mutually exclusive. The Human Rights Act is weak precisely because it leaves such wide latitude for interpretation. Saying everyone has a right to "a fair trial" is a paper tiger unless you specify what a fair trial is. Like the US Constitution and, more prosaically, the Canadian Charter do. Blair's idea of a fair trial is in another universe to everyone else's.

 

[Gmart]

I certainly agree that it needs to be well worded.

I am pleasantly surprised that people have taken to this subject. Usually some bizarre form of patriotism makes the British defend their system, where it seems undefendable to most other countries.

For starters the Magna Carta has been mentioned, and this as well as the Bill of Rights in 1688 both are agreements between the Monarchy and the Parliament, NOT an agreement between the Parliament and the People.

The statement that a good parliament doesn't need one and that a bad one makes one worthless is facile and not true. In both cases a Constitution or Bill of Rights would, if written well, limit the bad effects.

Also if we had Constitutional Courts then the law system in the UK would be much simpler and less expensive. Though this might suggest the lack of support from lawyers for this idea.

I accept the criticism that mostly I am talking about a Bill of Rights. I am. However i feel that writing down the mechanism of government contributes to open government.

The key would seem to create a mechanism where anyone can suggest clauses, and to have this discussion as a continual part of being a citizen of the country.

On nearly every other aspect of civilisation we have been first to change, for example the Industrial revolution, but in this respect we can gain from taking all the best bits from the existing constitutions, and really create something worthwhile.

However, though I would applaud and even forgive Blair if he started this discussion eek, I suspect that he won't as Turkeys don't vote for xmas, and he is too much of a parliamentarian. Git!

 

[TAE]

Not the case. Parliament can surrender its own sovereignty. If it doesn't a bill of rights isn't worth the parchment it's written on: just witness how they disregard chunks of the Human Rights Act when it suits them.

Which is why any changes to the constitution/bill-of-rights should require a 2/3 majority in parliament.

In fact I think that any constitution/bill-of-rights should only be introduced if there is a 2/3 majority for it in parliament.

 

[gosub]

Which is why any changes to the constitution/bill-of-rights should require a 2/3 majority in parliament.

In fact I think that any constitution/bill-of-rights should only be introduced if there is a 2/3 majority for it in parliament.

When you say parliament do you mean the House of Commons? In which it just ends up as an exercise of three line whipping the most ovine through the lobbies. Just to entrench political parties with declining membership that are finding harder and harder to convince the public to wander down the polling station to vote for them.

However, though I would applaud and even forgive Blair if he started this discussion

Were we to end with a written constitution now, it would be down to Blair having pushed things past breaking point. You're talking bollocks if you are arguing that say "its worth trying to limit trial by jury, defy the international community and go to war on a lie, remove double jeopardy... just to get a written constitution.

 

[Gmart]

OK, alright Blair is the devil, but even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally, and it would be a good legacy.

What's done is done and a more graphic demonstration of the flaws in our system we couldn't have got. Change is needed and this is a good first step.

 

[TonkaToy]

I certainly agree that it needs to be well worded.

I am pleasantly surprised that people have taken to this subject. Usually some bizarre form of patriotism makes the British defend their system, where it seems undefendable to most other countries.

Hold on a minute! Not so bleeding fast.

It's not about patriotism. As I've said before, people will only come up with a decent constituion when under pressure to do so, such as when forming a new nation or after a revolution that overthrows a dictatorship. If people aren't under the pressure, they simply don't and won't draw up anything of any kind without bringing their politics to the table.

For starters the Magna Carta has been mentioned, and this as well as the Bill of Rights in 1688 both are agreements between the Monarchy and the Parliament, NOT an agreement between the Parliament and the People.

True, but that helped formed the role of the monarchy. To protect the people from the state.

The statement that a good parliament doesn't need one and that a bad one makes one worthless is facile and not true. In both cases a Constitution or Bill of Rights would, if written well, limit the bad effects.

And the good effects.

Also if we had Constitutional Courts then the law system in the UK would be much simpler and less expensive. Though this might suggest the lack of support from lawyers for this idea.

Examples please.

I accept the criticism that mostly I am talking about a Bill of Rights. I am. However i feel that writing down the mechanism of government contributes to open government.

The key would seem to create a mechanism where anyone can suggest clauses, and to have this discussion as a continual part of being a citizen of the country.

Wow, now that would be expensive.

On nearly every other aspect of civilisation we have been first to change, for example the Industrial revolution, but in this respect we can gain from taking all the best bits from the existing constitutions, and really create something worthwhile.

However, though I would applaud and even forgive Blair if he started this discussion eek, I suspect that he won't as Turkeys don't vote for xmas, and he is too much of a parliamentarian. Git!

If only Blair was a parliamentarian!

 

[Gmart]

Wasn't he voted best parliamentarian a few months ago!!!

Still i would maintain that a well written constitution would not limit the ability of a parliament to govern well.

The legal sector would be smaller because many cases would be a straight forward abuse of constitutional rights, rather than needing to go through the expense of a court case.

I can't think of what example you might accept to prove this.

Still simplicity and openess are key to this whole debate as the population need to know what they can and cannot do, the former being as important as the former in the name of freedom.

It is also a matter of having a document which reflects society as it is, not as the politicians would like it to be. It is no use telling kids that Cannabis kills if they know lots of people who gain from it. This just breeds contempt for the system.

I hope it will not have to get to the point of revolution to effect such needed change, however as stated Bagshot wrote about many of the current problems about the British Constitution 150 years ago and it still seems to be ignored by those in power.

 

[Cadmus]

The Human Rights Act is weak precisely because it leaves such wide latitude for interpretation. Saying everyone has a right to "a fair trial" is a paper tiger unless you specify what a fair trial is.

This is where constitutional courts come into place. The specifics of the principles are derived from case law of the "guardian of the constitution". The Human Rights Act is a typical fundamental act (they call them "organic" in continental Europe) which has some similarities to a constitution and many constitutions have a chapter outlining the rights in an almost identical manner to the HRA.

Not the case. Parliament can surrender its own sovereignty.

Well, i agree that the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty has long begun (Factortame case) but it's not nearly at the level which would allow a rigid written constitution.

 

[N_igma]

The Magna Carta is the unofficial constitution.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The Magna Carta is the unofficial constitution.

No it isn't. Have you read it?

The Act and Treaty of Union 1707 is. So there.

 

[Gmart]

The Magna Carta is an agreement between the Monarchy and Parliament, NOT an agreement between Parliament and the People which is what we need and what we are talking about.