No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by barkis on Aug 22, 2021 2:53:26 PM
For those who think the UK should have a written constitution.
chacqueschirac - 23 Aug 2021 06:13:44 (#1 of 80)

They have one in every civilized entity.

Arjuna - 23 Aug 2021 07:35:59 (#2 of 80)

That means Elder doesn’t need to win over the majority of voters – just enough to beat out Newsom’s other opponents

thats how you get elected in the UK

barkis - 23 Aug 2021 13:11:42 (#3 of 80)

Except in the UK the person in the position can't be barred from standing.

brooklyn - 23 Aug 2021 15:08:28 (#4 of 80)

it's obviously a very stupid procedure.

when you guys draft your constitution I'd advise you to take a pass on that.

Dementor - 23 Aug 2021 15:13:02 (#5 of 80)

It is written, it’s just not codified in a single document.

chacqueschirac - 23 Aug 2021 14:18:11 (#6 of 80)


FleurDuMal - 23 Aug 2021 15:23:43 (#7 of 80)

It is written, it’s just not codified in a single document.

A load of cobbled-together 'gentlemens agreements' don't really stand up to scrutiny.

Atticus - 24 Aug 2021 14:50:25 (#8 of 80)



The only real difference from many/most others is our constitution doesn't have any special measures to protect it from immediate change.

tasselhoff - 24 Aug 2021 14:58:22 (#9 of 80)

A bill of rights would be nice.

fogsake - 24 Aug 2021 14:59:44 (#10 of 80)

our constitution doesn't have any special measures to protect it from immediate change.

So it's whatever bollocks as we go along.

brooklyn - 24 Aug 2021 15:03:47 (#11 of 80)

the problem with the concept of an unwritten, complex, and totally flexible "constitution": that concept seems to equate what every viable society has, a current method of operation, with a written charter that dictates a method of operation. you could define "constitution" that way, i.e. simply being the totality of how the society works that day. but fwiw that wouldn't be my definition.

(btw, that does not indicate that a written consitition is the right way to go. though I do happen to think it is).

fogsake - 24 Aug 2021 15:08:12 (#12 of 80)

The current British constitution would be a fucking laughing stock if anyone froze it on paper for scrutiny.

A bill of rights is way long overdue.

barkis - 24 Aug 2021 15:35:12 (#13 of 80)


We had a bill of rights in 1688/9. I don't know if any of it survives.

Moschops - 24 Aug 2021 15:41:50 (#14 of 80)

For those who think the UK should have a written constitution.



Tinymcsmithy - 24 Aug 2021 15:48:06 (#15 of 80)

The whole ‘unwritten’ UK constitution argument is hilariously nonsensical. There isn’t one. Get over it.

And maybe it’s good that there isn’t one. The US one is treated like a holy book, which is misinterpreted on a daily basis and seems to hold back progress as much as it protects anything.

Atticus - 24 Aug 2021 15:48:21 (#16 of 80)

A quick google reveals the 1689 Bill Of Rights is still on the statue book.

spartak - 24 Aug 2021 15:50:22 (#17 of 80)

If we don’t have a constitution, why are we referred to as a constitutional monarchy? Genuine question.

Lento_ - 24 Aug 2021 15:52:41 (#18 of 80)

According to Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights remains in statute and continues to be cited in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms, particularly Article 9 on parliamentary freedom of speech.[35][36] Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015 which changed the laws of succession to the British throne.

Part of the Bill of Rights remains in statute in the Republic of Ireland.

and interestingly:

Following the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum in 2016, the Bill of Rights was cited by the Supreme Court in the Miller case, in which the court ruled that triggering EU exit must first be authorised by an act of Parliament.[41][42] It was cited again by the Supreme Court in its 2019 ruling that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. The Court disagreed with the Government's assertion that prorogation could not be questioned under the Bill of Rights 1689 as a "proceeding of Parliament"; it ruled that the opposite assertion, that prorogation was imposed upon and not debatable by Parliament, and could bring protected parliamentary activity under the Bill of Rights to an end unlawfully.

tasselhoff - 24 Aug 2021 15:54:11 (#19 of 80)

It doesn't sound much cop for your average commoner.

tasselhoff - 24 Aug 2021 15:55:37 (#20 of 80)

It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and confirmed that "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".

So no torture, basically. Gee thanks.

Check Subscriptions
Home » International