A written constitution?

Scroll to see replies

LibertineNorth

Certainly. I believe the only countries without codified constitutions these days are the United Kingdom and Israel - both are democratic and quite 'free' states.

Neither does New Zealand.

Reply 21

DaveyJ

A codified constitution leads into many avoidable problems. An uncodified constitution 1) allows an organic political system, which prevents political stagnation; 2) also allows for further checks and balances on power, our constitution is run by a number of different elements meaning the abuse of one area can be checked by others.

Reply 22

L i b

Chrism

Neither does New Zealand.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz00000_.html ?

Reply 23

octanethriller

A codified constitution does not necessarily safeguard one's civil liberties far better than an uncodified constitution. It could be argued that conventions are far harder to change than, to ammend a constitution.

Reply 24

zooropa

Constitutional conventions aren't broken because of the crisis that would arise. Besides, if a convention is broken, who is punished or made accountable? If the Sovereign decided not to grant Royal Assent to a Bill from Parliament, the Sovereign wouldn't be held accountable for this. It's not an effective check on someone's powers.

Reply 25

L i b

The Sovereign is accountable to Parliament in the end and it's not like nobody will notice if the Queen doesn't grant Royal Assent to a Bill. It must be remembered that it is her right not to, however.

Reply 26

zooropa

But she would face no penalty if she did refuse the Royal Assent. She wouldn't be forced to abdicate.

Reply 27

Lottie

1. A written constitution is unneccessary
- The current system has a number of balances and checks built into it (i.e. there is a degree of balance between the executive, legislature and judiciary).
- Opposition within Parliament or outside pressure sometimes force the government's hand (e.g. poll tax).
- Judgments in the courts may curb government excesses.

2. A written constitution is undesirable
- It would mean that any dispute over the strucutre and powers of government, the relationship between different parts of government and the relationship between government and citizen would be settled by a court (l.e. power would be transferred from the elected executive to the unelected judiciary).
- The judiciary would have the power to declare laws and actions unconstitutional (i.e. judges would have to make political decisions).

3. A written constitution is unachievable
- It would be difficult to gain a consensus about what exactly should be written down in the constitution.
- Under the existing consitution there is no way of introducing a new constitution. There is no body that can authorsise or legitimise a new constitution.
- An Act of Parliament creating a new constitution or stipulating the procedures for creating one would derive its legitimacy from the doctrine which it sought to destroy. The one thing that Parliament cannot do is use itsp ower under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to destroy that doctrine, because is legitimacy to do so derives from the very power which it seeks to destroy.
- We would have to create a new, written constitution from scratch and disavow our existing constitution. This would cause constitutional and political turmoil.

* * *

1. To protect against arbitrary government
- The main argument in favour of a written constitution is that it would keep in check the power of the executive. Those who support a written constitution, therefore, tend to argue that there is a need to limit government in Britain and that codifying the constitution is the best means to this end.
- A written constitution would describe and entrench: the structure and powers of government; the relationship between different parts of government; and the relationship between government and citizen.
- It would prevent arbitrary government since any disputes would be solved by (new) constitutional judicial procedures.

Lord Halisham, 1976 - GB an elective dictatorship. Curb power of the executive by writing down exactly where its powers lie.

2. To protect citizens' rights
- There is the idea that citizens' rights can only be properly protected if they are entrenched in a written constitution.
- At present, a government with an overall majority can add or remove citizens' rights simply by introducing a Bill and relying on its parliamentary majority to pass it.

Criminal Justice Act (1994) - restricts the right of people to protest and specifically targets minorities such as squatters and hunt saboteurs.
- Under a written constitution, the government would not be able to introduce legislation targeting minorities in this way or restricting citizens' rights without amending the constitution (a difficult and lengthy process).

3. To bring the constitution up to date
- Parliamentary sovereignty profoundly affected by EU membership
-- No longer fully intact so need for a new constitutional settlement
- Powers are being devolved to the new assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
-- Constitutional relationship between the centre and the regions will need to be redefined, requiring a new constitutional settlement.

4. To move into line with the rest of the EU
The UK is the only country in the EU without a written constitution.

The UK constitution would be classified as unwritten/uncodified, flexible, parlimentary and unitary.
The US constitution would be classified as written/codified, rigid, republican, presidential and federal.

Reply 28

L i b

zooropa

But she would face no penalty if she did refuse the Royal Assent. She wouldn't be forced to abdicate.

Are you suggesting that it'd be desirable to force the Queen to abdicate if she refused Royal Assent to a Bill?

Anyway, you're not necessarily correct, she could be forced to abdicate on those grounds if Parliament wished it.

lottie

Lord Halisham, 1976 - GB an elective dictatorship

Do you have a quote or a reference for this?

Powers are being devolved to the new assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
-- Constitutional relationship between the centre and the regions will need to be redefined, requiring a new constitutional settlement.

Not really, these bodies are quite adequately provided for in Acts of Parliament. I don't see any need to make our devolution any more official than that. After all, devolution doesn't affect the authority of Parliament or the Crown in the least.

Reply 29

Chrism

LibertineNorth

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz00000_.html ?

It's not 'the constitution' per se, just one act of parliament they decided to call the Constitution Act. It has no special legal status (unlike for example the Bill Of Rights Act)

http://www.constitutional.parliament.govt.nz/templates/Page.aspx?id=256 explains New Zealand's constitutional history quite well.

Reply 30

Lottie

LibertineNorth

Lottie

Lord Halisham, 1976 - GB an elective dictatorship

Do you have a quote or a reference for this?

Apologies for the typo; I meant Lord Hailsham, not Lord Halisham.

Here is a link to an extract of his "elective dictatorship" speech:

We live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice. How far it is still tolerable is the question I want to raise for discussion.