Should the UK have a Written Constitution?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
The aim of the original HRA (2000) was the European Union wanting all of its member states to have something to work from, an original text from which the governments of member states could formulate their own human rights act/ bill of rights. However after the time it took for the HRA to be slowly and painfully explained to the judiciary (and wasn't that a worthwhile exercise boys and girls? 
) the issue was droipped as it was deemed to ungainly for a government to introduce one bit of Human Rights legislation and then start working on its successor. The opposition and the press ewould have had a field day on that.
As it is, the HRA has been a useful scapegoat for poor legislation introduced by the government and the startling realisation that the judiciary aren't so much out of touch as ex directory. If there's a judicial problem, blame the HRA and most importantly blame Europe. If prisoners are being given televisions having earned them through working in the prison, dump it on the HRA and Europe. Cameron is actually, and this is the worrying bit, doing exactly what Labour claimed they were going to do just prior to the passing of the EU's Human Rights Act in the late nineties. He's accelerating through the Blair led New Labour Goverment history without having to deal with the issues that concern a government in office.
As for the original question. The constitutions of the states of America and Russia as well as a large amount of the Eastern European nations were formed in a period that has not been experience in Britain since Charles I suffered a very poor haircut. The post revolutionary era, in which a nation is experiencing a certain amount of patriotic feeling and most importantly, the feeling that what comes next must not mirror that which has gone before.
The English legal system is a gargantuan mass of complication, infuriation and bastardisation; having been allowed to get to this situation by centuries of an imperially focused government followed by the 20th century, in which the main aim of a government was to focus on gaining the majority of the vote for the next election. Governments don't especially care about sorting out the legal system because the general public do not care that we are still using the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861 with a few extra bits tacked on down the years. It won't win votes and so it's not brought up.
The mass of legislature and common law that makes up the English Legal System has not in any way been given the resources it needs to sort itself out in a clear and understandable manner. There is no effective scrutiny or even the equivalent to someone just chucking out the laws that have little relevance to modern society or reccomending those that need to be replaced.
) the issue was droipped as it was deemed to ungainly for a government to introduce one bit of Human Rights legislation and then start working on its successor. The opposition and the press ewould have had a field day on that.As it is, the HRA has been a useful scapegoat for poor legislation introduced by the government and the startling realisation that the judiciary aren't so much out of touch as ex directory. If there's a judicial problem, blame the HRA and most importantly blame Europe. If prisoners are being given televisions having earned them through working in the prison, dump it on the HRA and Europe. Cameron is actually, and this is the worrying bit, doing exactly what Labour claimed they were going to do just prior to the passing of the EU's Human Rights Act in the late nineties. He's accelerating through the Blair led New Labour Goverment history without having to deal with the issues that concern a government in office.
As for the original question. The constitutions of the states of America and Russia as well as a large amount of the Eastern European nations were formed in a period that has not been experience in Britain since Charles I suffered a very poor haircut. The post revolutionary era, in which a nation is experiencing a certain amount of patriotic feeling and most importantly, the feeling that what comes next must not mirror that which has gone before.
The English legal system is a gargantuan mass of complication, infuriation and bastardisation; having been allowed to get to this situation by centuries of an imperially focused government followed by the 20th century, in which the main aim of a government was to focus on gaining the majority of the vote for the next election. Governments don't especially care about sorting out the legal system because the general public do not care that we are still using the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861 with a few extra bits tacked on down the years. It won't win votes and so it's not brought up.
The mass of legislature and common law that makes up the English Legal System has not in any way been given the resources it needs to sort itself out in a clear and understandable manner. There is no effective scrutiny or even the equivalent to someone just chucking out the laws that have little relevance to modern society or reccomending those that need to be replaced.
There is the Law Commission which periodically has a clear-out (many of the "amusing" old laws have, in fact been repealed during these sessions but no-one keeps up) and it does prepare recommendations on revamping laws where needed (they recently did a total overall of sexual offences and have work in progress on homicide).TheLostProphet said:
Wouldn't say it's totally "effective" though - at very least I would have expected all statutes in force to be on the internet now - they've been putting new stuff on there since 1988 - it's about time they went back and typed up all the other stuff still in force (the process may be useful as the prompt for a spring clen - when typing it up ask if it is still relevant, if not, give up typing and bin it!)
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
I do accept the Law Commission does clear out, I believe it also recommends legislation which is overdue a tune up. But IMO, it needs to be bigger and government needs to pay attention to it.
Totally agree with you on the online concept, that would be immeasurably useful to everyone in the judicial system and outside of it.
Before we have a 'proper' constitution, we need to sort out the legislation that would be covered in it.
Totally agree with you on the online concept, that would be immeasurably useful to everyone in the judicial system and outside of it.
Before we have a 'proper' constitution, we need to sort out the legislation that would be covered in it.
Gmarthews said:
Erm, but you don't understand, that no government is EVER going to give such a bill of rights. All they would do, is give you something which broadens their powerbase. Only people under pressure of forming a new state in a new country or after a bloody revolution can possibly draft up a bill of rights.
It's not about trying to convince me that a bill of rights is a good thing. It's just that it ain't gonna happen without a bloody violent revolution and let's face it, who the fuck wants a bloody violent revolution just get a bill rights?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
It would seem that Gordon Brown is indeed considering this move, see here, and I for one applaud him. I may have my differences with this government but this would be a move in the right direction if we can get a consensus on what should be in it!
So would people be happy with this development, or are they all still crooks out to get us?
So would people be happy with this development, or are they all still crooks out to get us?
Governments would not vote for such a thing - without sufficient public pressure and support, which I think is possible.
A "flexible" constitution is another way of saying, "I, holding supreme executive power, will legitimize whatever I want to do via my majority in Parliament". A real constitution says "no matter who you are, you cannot do whatever you want, even if a majority in parliament supports it". A constitution is all about defining and limiting the powers of the organs of government.
What troubles me about the existing setup is that a prime minister with a majority can do more or less whatever they want. They control the legislature through the whips, the judiciary through the tamed legislature, and the monarch through long custom. There is nothing that exists in the British "constitution" to prevent them from running roughshod over the will of the people, because under the current setup power flows not from the people but from the Crown in parliament, and the will of the people is constitutionally irrelevant. Sure, the number of seats a party gets depends somewhat on the number of votes, but the Queen can still ask the leader of a party that didn't get the most votes to form a government (see the 1951 election for an example).
Sure, it's more expensive in the short term to go through a constitutional process than not to. But in the long term, how much have we already lost in terms of our freedoms by not having one!
A "flexible" constitution is another way of saying, "I, holding supreme executive power, will legitimize whatever I want to do via my majority in Parliament". A real constitution says "no matter who you are, you cannot do whatever you want, even if a majority in parliament supports it". A constitution is all about defining and limiting the powers of the organs of government.
What troubles me about the existing setup is that a prime minister with a majority can do more or less whatever they want. They control the legislature through the whips, the judiciary through the tamed legislature, and the monarch through long custom. There is nothing that exists in the British "constitution" to prevent them from running roughshod over the will of the people, because under the current setup power flows not from the people but from the Crown in parliament, and the will of the people is constitutionally irrelevant. Sure, the number of seats a party gets depends somewhat on the number of votes, but the Queen can still ask the leader of a party that didn't get the most votes to form a government (see the 1951 election for an example).
Sure, it's more expensive in the short term to go through a constitutional process than not to. But in the long term, how much have we already lost in terms of our freedoms by not having one!
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
once upon a time i'd have said emphatically yes.
but on reflection it hasn't helped america stay free.
as long as there is a power structure it will be exploited by those for whom power is the thing.
exploit me with a constitution or without, it's all the same to me.
but on reflection it hasn't helped america stay free.
as long as there is a power structure it will be exploited by those for whom power is the thing.
exploit me with a constitution or without, it's all the same to me.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Yes it has. America is far, far better off with a constitution than without one. It's bad, but it could be a lot worse.bluestreak said:
Example: Bush is currently being raked over the coals for wiretapping without warrants. British governments have been doing that for decades.
It may not have shut down Guantanamo, but it prevented it from becoming a legal black hole.
Of course. Question is by how much. I support anything weakening their hold vigoriously. "It should go because it ain't perfect" isn't a good argument.
No it isn't. Being arrested for bullshit reasons and thrown in jail at the fiat of the ruler is a little worse than being arrested for bullshit reasons and having a real chance of being acquitted, is it not?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
and you really think that this country's politicians would draw up a constitution that would get in their way?
come the revolution, yeah, let's have it. it might do some good. but right here and right now it will make fuck all difference. they'll only give us a constitution that they stand to gain from, and that won't protect anyone one bit.
and not having a constitution hasn't turned this country into a tinpot dictatorship, in case you hadn't noticed. a capitalist oligarchy with constantly eroding civil rights, yeah, but certainly no worse than nations with a constitution.
come the revolution, yeah, let's have it. it might do some good. but right here and right now it will make fuck all difference. they'll only give us a constitution that they stand to gain from, and that won't protect anyone one bit.
and not having a constitution hasn't turned this country into a tinpot dictatorship, in case you hadn't noticed. a capitalist oligarchy with constantly eroding civil rights, yeah, but certainly no worse than nations with a constitution.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
But what is rarely admitted is that the constitution as it stands has holes in it you could fly a 747 through. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Blair's near-abolishing of hereditary peers without putting a proper new Lords system in place. So he abolished half of the old system before he'd come up with a new system. Meanwhile he's stocking the Lords with his cronies, presumably trying to get as many in as possible before further reforms end or limit the Appointments system.Fullyplumped said:
In how many countries could you do that? Not in any country with a decent written constitution I'd be willing to bet.
(apologies if someone already said this btw - I haven't finished reading the thread yet).
red_gordon
New Member
I don't particularly see the value of a written constitution as some abstract exorcise.
There would have to be some general will among the people before something meaningful could be wrote, otherwise it would be nothing but a scrap of paper.
There would have to be some general will among the people before something meaningful could be wrote, otherwise it would be nothing but a scrap of paper.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Brainaddict said:
Not to mention having the technical freedom to attack another country without a vote if the PM sees fit.
Sadly we never had a chance to see if Blair would do this as the Commons saw fit to support him anyway.
But that's another discussion.
I have heard it said that the Liberals are toying with the idea of the right to Maternity and Paternity leave rather than the existing right to ask. There is also the suggestion of a right to be able to take your children with you to work for the first 3 years as the trauma of seperation is quite bad for them otherwise.
In Korea the women all go back to work quite quickly often with their child strapped to their back. It is something to do with feeling the heart beat, and you see them often just sitting there staring into the distance being quiet.
I'm sure that business would complain, but if everyone had this right they would find a way, esp with a bit of support from the government maybe.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I think you're confusing a constitution with a bill of rights. A constitution is concerned mostly with the technical procedures of government, not with individual rights. Of course the constitution can reference a bill of rights, but that doesn't make them the same thing.Gmarthews said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Mallard said:It's worked well for France and the USA so should be fine and dandy for us
Well, sort of. I wouldn't say either constitution was problem-free. The French constitution (2nd Republic) had a loophole that allowed Napoleon III to extend his powers and become emperor. Whereas the US constitution has remained more or less intact since the day it was written...though many amendments have had to be added; such as those that guaranteed black people the right to vote - despite the fact that that right was already enshrined in the document. The constitution can be anything you want it to be. Many folk see it in the same way as "The Word of God": unalterable and supreme.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Brainaddict said:
As previously said i am using both terms interchangeably and i accept that i shouldn't, apologies. Mostly i am talking about the bill of rights, but often i am talking more generally about the non-existent agreement between the People and Government, which is considered to be unsaid, and which causes a society where many avoid any kind of cooperation as part of society and fall back on pure selfishness without any debate.
In a country with a more defined constitutional set-up, and a more empowering bill of rights, the equality of opportunity means that the selfish are the losers and have no one else to blame than themselves.
That said our set-up enables the UK to compete in the international game of 'Who can get away with giving their people the least rights' and thus the UK gains in number of jobs from the Multinationals who don't want to adhere to basic rights and who will go to the country where human rights are at their least.
I feel that we could discuss what rights we might have in the document. I would be VERY interested in have the rights concerning parents enshrined.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
1930s Germany had a written constitution too, but it didn't prevent Hitler from assuming dictatorial powers and establishing a one-party state.nino_savatte said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
poster342002 said:
Quite correct. It could have happened in the US during the 30s when MacArthur was in the ascendancy. Good thing he was despatched to the Phillipines - eh?
IIRC, the French constitution was rewritten for the Fifth Republic (and its predecessor republics). De Gaulle wanted and received increased powers as president.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What Azreal sed...I can't be arsed to write a long and involvd post on this...
It seems odd to be bothered about the form a constitution takes rather than its content. There is nothing magical about something written down. It was the Babylonians who started it and I'm not sure they fared any better than those who didn't.
There is a Anglo Saxon desire for order and neatness and a more relaxed philosophical desire to state ones ideals which has resulted in a number of countries writting down a constititution of sorts. Of course that it true of England which has Bill of Rights and its was perhaps the unhappy rememberance of it Revolution that means that the issue was never re-visited.
There is a Anglo Saxon desire for order and neatness and a more relaxed philosophical desire to state ones ideals which has resulted in a number of countries writting down a constititution of sorts. Of course that it true of England which has Bill of Rights and its was perhaps the unhappy rememberance of it Revolution that means that the issue was never re-visited.
Similar threads
