DEBATE: Does the UK need a codified constitution, and if so what should it look like? Watch

Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
[field=What is this?] This is a debate in the Model House of Commons. I am posting with permission from the Speaker after having consulted him as to the best course of action for this. The debate will have no direct impact on the laws of the TSR MHoC or the UK as a whole. That said, If you are reading this BoJo call me so we can make this happen.[\field]


The UK is going through a tumultuous time currently. With the rows over Brexit, the power of the courts, the executive the queen and parliament there is no getting away from the fact that now is perhaps the time when we have needed to think about codification the most since the time of Commonwealth. So I present to you this debate:


Does the UK need a codified constitution?

It should come as no surprise to the followers of my political career that my answer is an emphatic YES! I love written rules and I also dislike the fusion of powers that we see in the UK. Because of FPTP, we have a system where, in normal times, the prime minister, who controls the majority of parliament, also controls the executive power and as such can have effective control over the judiciary. To me, and I suggest to any liberal, this is a scary thought. No one man should have all this power, or else what was the English Civil War about?

So, now I have told you why I believe we need a codified constitution, let me tell you what I would put in it.

I have written my proposed constitution here.

In this constitution, I have established numerous things, and I'll take you through a whistlestop tour of them now.


Separation of powers

I believe there to be four major and five minor so-called 'Organs of State'. These are the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Moderative Organs, alongside the Electoral, the Audit, the Prosecutorial, the Fiscal and the Religous minor Organs. Together they create a state.

These organs are created in a way where they all interact with each other because you cannot separate the powers in a vacuum, but only to hold each other to account. The powers that they wield are all quite separate and it is ensured that no one person can be a member of two or more organs at once, thus protecting the separation of powers.

For the leftists who will complain about the Monarchy and the Church, I say this: "Who would you rather have as Head of State, an apolitical figure who cannot lose their job who's only interested in protecting the people, or a political figure who needs to make sure that they are re-elected and their party isn't harmed?" As for the church, quite frankly you cannot have a monarchy which does not have a divine right to rule.


Federalisation

I know many people will complain about this too. They believe that federalisation will result in the break up of the Union. I disagree.

The break up of the Union is being fuelled by the unequalness of it all. The fact that the parliament of the United Kingdom is also the parliament of England, together with the Barnett Formula tying English, Scottish etc. spending together is what is pushing us apart. By giving the Scots a parliament which has more powers but also doesn't need to worry about the English Parliament (partly because England is divided into four kingdoms) you create a system where the Scottish parliament can rule for Scotland and the National Assembly as I called it only rules on defence and common interests. This will lead to a more united kingdom (or Grand-Kingdom) and will weaken the calls for separation.

Further to this effect is the splitting of the Organs of State into different Cities and giving each kingdom of the union it's own King, who will go on to lead the Grand-Kingdom, thus allowing people to see that each kingdom is equally important.

Finally, this bill would give people more power. By devolving power towards people and communities we would see things get done better and faster than central governance could ever achieve.


Anything Else?

I'm glad you asked. There are many other things that this constitution seeks to do and I cannot tell you it all now. One thing I believe in is the reward of hard work and effort, as such technocratic chambers are established and this constitution allows people who have worked for the state over numerous years to be rewarded ultimately with the potential to become a King or Queen.

It also establishes free trade as a principle tenant of the nation (sorry to all you commies out there!) which further encourages the reward and recognition of hard work and talent.


So now, it's over to you. Do you think there should be a written constitution? If so why and if not why? Do you live what I've written? or do you completely abhor it?

P.S. Bonus question: What do you think that BoJo is going to do with the constitution now?
Last edited by CatusStarbright; 1 month ago
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Why now?

We've managed for several hundred years as a nation without one, why do we need one now?

Hard to interpret this as anything but a reaction to an election result you don't like.
1
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Drewski)
Why now?

We've managed for several hundred years as a nation without one, why do we need one now?

Hard to interpret this as anything but a reaction to an election result you don't like.
I've been arguing for a constitution since I cared about politics and I actually quite like the result so nice try...

And I explained why in part, but further having 'managed' is hardly an argument. Even if it were true. ultimately people care less about tradition and will only follow rules if they are forced to so it's time to create rules which can be enforced imo.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Just confirming I did give permission
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Aph)
I've been arguing for a constitution since I cared about politics and I actually quite like the result so nice try...

And I explained why in part, but further having 'managed' is hardly an argument. Even if it were true. ultimately people care less about tradition and will only follow rules if they are forced to so it's time to create rules which can be enforced imo.
Wasn't a dig, just a comment on how it comes across. But sure, take it personally... :rolleyes:
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Drewski)
Wasn't a dig, just a comment on how it comes across. But sure, take it personally... :rolleyes:
Gosh, you really don't know what taking something personally means if you think I took that personally.
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Aph)
I've been arguing for a constitution since I cared about politics and I actually quite like the result so nice try...

And I explained why in part, but further having 'managed' is hardly an argument. Even if it were true. ultimately people care less about tradition and will only follow rules if they are forced to so it's time to create rules which can be enforced imo.
And we've had a constituion since long before you were even born, or your parents for that matter, or their parents,....or their parents.

As for being able to be enforced, might want to talk to BoJo about that one...
1
reply
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
It's field not field btw, you messed up the coding
0
reply
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
I believe it should.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
In theory I believe in having one, though I would be concerned at the time that would be spent in drawing up and agreeing one would be at the expense of the issues that need fixing. Such as the climate change emergency, or the housing crisis many people face, for example. If we had one it would be presumably one that could only be changed by referendum, I assume.
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And we've had a constituion since long before you were even born, or your parents for that matter, or their parents,....or their parents.

As for being able to be enforced, might want to talk to BoJo about that one...
I think we both know that i mean a codified and entrenched constitution.

some enforcement isn't total enforcement
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
I’ll give it a read when possible however I generally see codification as needless and if anything would strip back.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
I dislike far too much of this. Federalism is not the way forward and you're adding in so much bureaucracy with silly titles. I also don't see the need for a codified constitution.

(PS Aph you should spell-check the OP, specifically fix the spelling of 'field' as it's messed up the formatting - I can do it for you if you want. Also, you asked if we should have a constitution - we have one, just not a written one).
0
reply
myst451
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
I don't think we need a codified constitution but I would like one. As you say we have coped without one since the beginning of time but I don't believe in this whole 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality'. For one, that's just waiting for crisis to happen, and secondly, I think there are glaring issues we must address.

The main issue I think is a lack of faith in democracy (for three main reasons, as set out below).

Brexit has uncovered a host of problems we face because of the ambiguities in our constitution; anything from the allegedly partisan activity of former-speaker John Bercow to the Gina Miller case are evidence of this. The Gina Miller case in particular I think is interesting because it arguably politicised the role of unelected and unaccountable judges. We have a constitution but it is so open to interpretation that it has become susceptible to political agendas. We saw this in BoJo's attempt to prorogue Parliament (though unsuccessful it was only deemed so by the same unelected and unaccountable judges). The ever increasing role of the judiciary in politics must be defined, and I see having a written constitution as the best way in which to do this.

People have a lack of faith in politicians themselves. Political sleaze has always been an issue but I think the expenses scandal still haunts people (and is still mentioned in question time interestingly). There seem to be deep-rooted prejudices within political parties (especially islamophobia and antisemitism) but John Bercow also faced accusations of bullying. Most of all, watching every single election debate/QandA the issue of trust came up time and time again. The word 'bus' was probably mentioned more than 'business' in the campaigns which reflects the extent to which this election has been dominated by Brexit, [false promises to the] NHS, and the way politicians fail to 'deliver brexit' (and whatever else they have promised in their absurdly ambitious manifestos). If we don't trust our politicians, how can we trust them to make sense of a constitution that is very much theirs to make sense of? Recently, the answer seems to have been to leave the decision to the supreme court, but as I have previously argued, 'the rule of judges' would be profoundly undemocratic which I have a problem with. Surely we must deal with this potentiality?

Finally, the whole debate over indyref2 has split the Remainers, some of whom feel that you cannot go back on a referendum result. A possible solution would be to hold a second referendum (BoJo's deal vs Remain) and then act on the result. This would 'get Brexit done'. HOwever, people are right to have a problem with this because it sets a damaging precedent, and precedent is really the essence of our constitution. Maybe then we should consider codifying our constitution with several clauses on referenda which set out specific requirements for when it is appropriate to hold a referendum, and non-negotiable legal bonds that demand the government carries out the result. If it is concluded that the EU referendum should never have been held in the first place since it did not have two clear options on the table, codifying the constitution, regardless of whether we actually want a second referendum or not, should be seen as an incredible opportunity to ensure this never happens again. No more 3 year periods of stagnant uncertainty, instability and gridlock. The Brexit process has tested our constitution and shown that ill-defined precedent that relies on the integrity of politicians is a shaky, ambiguous and unsatisfactory basis for the challenges of modern day politics.
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I dislike far too much of this. Federalism is not the way forward and you're adding in so much bureaucracy with silly titles. I also don't see the need for a codified constitution.

(PS Aph you should spell-check the OP, specifically fix the spelling of 'field' as it's messed up the formatting - I can do it for you if you want. Also, you asked if we should have a constitution - we have one, just not a written one).
Why is federalism not the way forward? Also, from some quick mental arithmetic I believe that this reduces the number of politicians not increases. Further, what “silly titles” am I adding? For most of the titles I have created there is already a real world equivalent...

As for the OP, I’ve tried to fix the field issue but I can’t make it work in preview and I’m scared of destroying the OP.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Aph)
[feild=What is this?] This is a debate in the Model House of Commons. I am posting with permission from the Speaker after having consulted him as to the best course of action for this. The debate will have no direct impact on the laws of the TSR MHoC or the UK as a whole. That said, If you are reading this BoJo call me so we can make this happen[\feild]

The UK is going through a tumultuous time currently. With the rows over Brexit, the power of the courts, the executive the queen and parliament there is no getting away from the fact that now is perhaps the time when we have needed to think about codification the most since the time of Commonwealth. So I present to you this debate:



Does the UK need a codified constitution?


should come as no surprise to the followers of my political career that my answer is an emphatic YES! I live written rules and I also dislike the fusion of powers that we see in the UK. Because of FPTP, we have a system where, in normal times, the prime minister, who controls the majority of parliament, also controls the executive power and as such can have effective control over the judiciary. To me, and I suggest to any liberal, this is a scary thought. No one man should have all this power, or else what was the English Civil War about?

So, now I have told you why I believe we need a codified constitution, let me tell you what I would put in it.

I have written my proposed constitution here.


In this constitution, I have established numerous things, and I'll take you through a whistlestop tour of them now.



Separation of powers


I believe there to be four major and five minor so-called 'Organs of State'. These are the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Moderative Organs, alongside the Electoral, the Audit, the Prosecutorial, the Fiscal and the Religous minor Organs. Together they create a state.

These organs are created in a way where they all interact with each other because you cannot separate the powers in a vacuum, but only to hold each other to account. The powers that they wield are all quite separate and it is ensured that no one person can be a member of two or more organs at once, thus protecting the separation of powers.

For the leftists who will complain about the Monarchy and the Church, I say this: "Who would you rather have as Head of State, an apolitical figure who cannot lose their job who's only interested in protecting the people, or a political figure who needs to make sure that they are re-elected and their party isn't harmed?" As for the church, quite frankly you cannot have a monarchy which does not have a divine right to rule.



Federalisation


I know many people will complain about this too. They believe that federalisation will result in the break up of the Union. I disagree.

The break up of the Union is being fueled by the unequalness of it all. The fact that the parliament of the United Kingdom is also the parliament of England, together with the Barnett Formula tieing English, Scottish etc. spending together is what is pushing us apart. By giving the Scotts a parliament which has more powers but also doesn't need to worry about the English Parliament (partly because England is divided into four kingdoms) you create a system where the Scottish parliament can rule for Scotland and the National Assembly as I called it only rules on defence and common interests. This will lead to a more united kingdom (or Grand-Kingdom) and will weaken the calls for separation.

Further to this effect is the splitting of the Organs of State into different Cities and giving each kingdom of the union it's own King, who will go on to lead the Grand-Kingdom, thus allowing people to see that each kingdom is equally important.

Finally, this bill would give people more power. By devolving power towards people and communities we would see things get done better and faster than central governance could ever achieve.



Any Thing Else?


I'm glad you asked. There are many other things that this constitution seeks to do and I cannot tell you it all now. One thing I believe in is the reward of hard work and effort, as such technocratic chambers are established and this constitution allows people who have worked for the state over numerous years to be rewarded ultimately with the potential to become a King or Queen.

It also establishes free trade as a principle tenant of the nation (sorry to all you commies out there!) which further encourages the reward and recognition of hard work and talent.


So now, it's over to you. Do you think there should be a constitution? If so why and if not why? Do you live what I've written? or do you completely abhor it?

P.S. Bonus question: What do you think that BoJo is going to do with the constitution now?
We want to be less like America not more.
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
We want to be less like America not more.
You know that most countries have an entrenched and codified constitution and not just America?
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Aph)
You know that most countries have an entrenched and codified constitution and not just America?
We don't need a constitution like those other countries then. And anyway we need to keep what makes us unique in the world and carry on with a political tradition that the UK has had for centuries.
0
reply
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
TBH a Constitution would be nice as it would set out the playing field but the whole "Grand-king" thing is confusing. Isn't one monarchy enough? Also, what about the commonwealth in that case?
0
reply
Abdullahkhan1234
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Drewski)
Why now?

We've managed for several hundred years as a nation without one, why do we need one now?

Hard to interpret this as anything but a reaction to an election result you don't like.
I disagree, there has been a far greater desire in recent times for a codified constitution mainly due to Brexit. Once we leave the EU which seems basically guaranteed at this point i think it is very important we set out the exact rules and rights in a single codified doctrine. This could help provide checks and balances on the government and clearly and undeniably outline the powers of each institution as well as extend the protection of rights for all citizens. The only issue with establishing a codified constitution is getting parliament to agree upon one.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (197)
67.93%
No (93)
32.07%

Watched Threads

View All