Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should Britain have a written constitution? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Britain have a written constitution?
    Yes
    13
    43.33%
    No
    17
    56.67%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    What issues? The US constitution has had little problems with the exception of guns and has been a great source of law in America.
    I am unsure I do not study politics, but I do know about the constitutions and the difficulty involved changing them. You have to remember not everyone agrees on a difficult topic. In addition to this notion, why would you change the constitution? Have anything negative arose from this constitution?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    Actually the Human Rights Act functions as a constitution in some sense and is working very well in defending privacy rights.
    It's not, as it makes no comment on how the institutions of government interact, merely how they interact with the people.

    But you are making my point - there are means to preserve civil rights better than a codified constitution
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    That's the point. Besides we don't have to make the stupid mistakes America did. I don't want the Tories writing it though, it needs to be something that protects humans rights not sells them to the highest bidder.
    And that's my point. Just look at the SNP wanting no nukes in theirs.

    As a pragmatist I like the current flexibility.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Outside of the EU yes we should.

    Inside it there would be no point as there's the ECHR that would just overrule it making it a waste of time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Outside of the EU yes we should.

    Inside it there would be no point as there's the ECHR that would just overrule it making it a waste of time.
    You do realise the ECHR is not an EU institution, right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You do realise the ECHR is not an EU institution, right?
    Yes but I'd guess we'd look to withdraw from both around the same time if we were to do so.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Yes but I'd guess we'd look to withdraw from both around the same time if we were to do so.
    Do you mean withdraw from both, codify the constitution, but add some charter on civil rights to it, enforceable by courts capable of nullifying legislation that violates it?

    Or codify the constitution as it stands, give judges the power to strike down law, but base civil rights on what is already in British law?

    Or codify the constitution but keep judges as now i.e. not able to strike down law?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Do you mean withdraw from both, codify the constitution, but add some charter on civil rights to it, enforceable by courts capable of nullifying legislation that violates it?

    Or codify the constitution as it stands, give judges the power to strike down law, but base civil rights on what is already in British law?

    Or codify the constitution but keep judges as now i.e. not able to strike down law?
    I'd withdraw from both and set up a UK Bill of Rights that takes a lot of the ECHR legislation but removes what we don't want and adds what we do want to best suit us.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    I'd withdraw from both and set up a UK Bill of Rights that takes a lot of the ECHR legislation but removes what we don't want and adds what we do want to best suit us.
    But what about judicial application? That's the clincher. Would you want judges to overrule legislation if it violates said Bill of Rights?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me guess it'll all be about minority rights, equality, and basically anything to put white people down.We need a white constitution. 1. Whites should be given the right to self determination 2. Positive discrimination recognized as the racist double standard it is. 3. White majority & minority rights seeing as as minority rights only apply to coloured people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    yes - but it would be difficult to make one that doesn't totally suck and isn't completely half-baked/terrible
    we need one like the american constitution, e.g. freedom of speech being absolute, except for threats of violence etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConsciousMind)
    Let me guess it'll all be about minority rights, equality, and basically anything to put white people down.We need a white constitution. 1. Whites should be given the right to self determination 2. Positive discrimination recognized as the racist double standard it is. 3. White majority & minority rights seeing as as minority rights only apply to coloured people.
    Shut up u milky bar. It's not because of racism it's because white people aren't a minority.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Nay.

    One look at the US and the SNP should tell us why a constitution is a bad thing.

    It will be subtly political and hard to change. Plus to be honest, the status quo is fine.
    I don't see why it would have to be hard to change. The Irish constitution has been amended more than 30 times in less than 80 years.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I don't see why it would have to be hard to change. The Irish constitution has been amended more than 30 times in less than 80 years.
    And the Australian one has barely been altered in the same time period

    The only advantage of codified constitutions - if you see it as an advantage - is that it freezes in time the assumptions and values of the age in which it is written. It's a masterpiece of conservative institutional capture.

    A codified constitution which is as easily amendable as the Irish one is no different in practical terms to our present uncodified one.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Numberwang)
    David Cameron wants a Bill of Rights, and it seems to be an idea gaining some mainstream support.

    This might seem a bit of an academic question, but if we're not careful, it might cause a revolution (led by Russell Brand, of course).

    There's going to be a debate in Westminster to mark the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.

    I'm a fan of it being unwritten and evolving. I find it surprising that Cameron wants a Bill of Rights when he's such a fan of Edmund Burke - the political writer who criticised the French Revolution and put the case for Britain's evolved unwritten constitution vs the written.
    N Our unwritten constitution relies on precedent and statute and because of that new precedents and statutes may be added or existing ones removed as parliament sees fit (a nod to pragmatism in constitutional law). In the UK/US the path to a mandated legislative body is the outcome of a historical process in which the social elites circumscribed and then appropriated the power of the monarchy. The sovereignty exercised by parliament was acquired by murder (so the moral basis for its power is compromised); one vested interest group violently displaced another, the right to control the destiny of a subordinate nation (who were not and are still not consulted) being the prize. An acceptance of the primacy of parliament over the nation is an acceptance that the individual is a subject of the State as well as the monarch which is an anathema to democratic philosophy as it is said to have been expressed by Solon (Greece C7th b.c.e), ’Citizens, by right, should be masters of the State’. The individuals in government constantly espouse their commitment to democracy but do everything in their power to frustrate it. I share the reservations expressed by most of the contributors to this thread that whoever is in power at the time this written constitution was being formulated would manipulate the composition of the committee to reflect the governing establishments view. In support of this view I quote the deceased historian and ex MP Brian Walden, “The two front benches [in parliament] liked each other and disliked their back benches. We were children of the famous consensus turning the opposition into government made little difference, for we believed much the same things.”


 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.