-:Undertaker:-
10-07-2014, 11:22 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28231109
MPs call for anniversary debate on 'new Magna Carta'
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63146000/jpg/_63146786_010563998-2.jpg
Magna Carta subjected the sovereign to the laws of the land for the first time.
The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta next year is the right time for a fresh debate on the pros and cons of a written constitution, MPs have said.
The Commons Political Reform Committee said the UK was currently governed by a "sprawling mass" of laws, treaty obligations and unwritten conventions.
It said a written constitution was one of three possible options that could form the basis of a "new settlement".
Magna Carta enshrined basic freedoms and limited monarchical power.
In 2015, the UK is marking the anniversary of the sealing of the first "Great Charter" by King John in 1215.
The cross-party committee said the celebrations were an appropriate moment to consider the UK's future constitutional framework.
It has published research by King's College London's constitutional unit, which has been fours years in the making, that sets out the arguments for and against a fully written constitution.
'Anachronism'
On the one hand, the research argues, a constitution - a basic document of law setting out the relationship between the state and its citizens - would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent in decision-making and address concerns that it is too easy for governments to tinker with existing constitutional conventions "to suit their own political convenience".
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76158000/jpg/_76158151_76143696.jpg
The UK is governed by a "sprawling mass" of laws and conventions, experts say
Changes to the UK's unwritten arrangements are needed, it suggests, because they are an "anachronism... riddled with references to our ancient past" which fail to "give primacy to the sovereignty of the people".
On the other hand, it says, the UK's evolutionary constitutional traditions have helped create the space for individual reforms when they are needed and to tackle practical problems when they arise.
It also suggests that there is no real popular demand for a written constitution, that such a step would be "un-British" and could politicise the judiciary by requiring it to pass judgement on the constitutionality of government legislation when such matters should be left to Parliament.
Oh my God, I literally can't think of anything worse.
A written constitution would not only throw away our rich history of historic laws which are followed around the world thanks to the legacy of the British Empire, but it'll also be subject to tinkering of our moronic politicians meaning the stupid fads of today that they're obsessed with (ie, 'Equality and Diversity') will forever be enshrined in law even if a government is elected that wishes to amend those laws or completely scrap them, which is exactly what I would like to see.
And not only that, but you'll then get - as the article points out - judges making key decisions on policy depending entirely on how they view the law, which if you look at America and other countries often comes entirely down to the political composition of the Supreme Court at the time, with conservative leaning judges siding with the Republicans and the liberal judges siding with the Democrats. Do we want our courts made political in the same way? No, so keep parliament sovereign. IN ANY CASE even with a written constitution, the politicians and courts simply 're-interpret' the law to say anything they want it to say...... which you can see with the United States concerning military actions/war.
The Westminster system of government is known for being one of the most stable because it is so flexible. Just look at the number of revolutions we've had: one, and even that republican regime of Cromwell retained our constitutional set up.
Thankfully this debate has been going on for years, and there's little motivation for what would be an enormous and complicated task..... wrought with controversy over whether we have referendums on things like retaining a state church, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, use of referendums, the status of the devolved mickey mouse assemblys in Scotland/Wales and Northern Ireland and so on and so forth.
Given the constitutional piss up they've made of it in the past few decades, would you trust them to 'put it right'? Nah.
Thoughts?
MPs call for anniversary debate on 'new Magna Carta'
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63146000/jpg/_63146786_010563998-2.jpg
Magna Carta subjected the sovereign to the laws of the land for the first time.
The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta next year is the right time for a fresh debate on the pros and cons of a written constitution, MPs have said.
The Commons Political Reform Committee said the UK was currently governed by a "sprawling mass" of laws, treaty obligations and unwritten conventions.
It said a written constitution was one of three possible options that could form the basis of a "new settlement".
Magna Carta enshrined basic freedoms and limited monarchical power.
In 2015, the UK is marking the anniversary of the sealing of the first "Great Charter" by King John in 1215.
The cross-party committee said the celebrations were an appropriate moment to consider the UK's future constitutional framework.
It has published research by King's College London's constitutional unit, which has been fours years in the making, that sets out the arguments for and against a fully written constitution.
'Anachronism'
On the one hand, the research argues, a constitution - a basic document of law setting out the relationship between the state and its citizens - would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent in decision-making and address concerns that it is too easy for governments to tinker with existing constitutional conventions "to suit their own political convenience".
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76158000/jpg/_76158151_76143696.jpg
The UK is governed by a "sprawling mass" of laws and conventions, experts say
Changes to the UK's unwritten arrangements are needed, it suggests, because they are an "anachronism... riddled with references to our ancient past" which fail to "give primacy to the sovereignty of the people".
On the other hand, it says, the UK's evolutionary constitutional traditions have helped create the space for individual reforms when they are needed and to tackle practical problems when they arise.
It also suggests that there is no real popular demand for a written constitution, that such a step would be "un-British" and could politicise the judiciary by requiring it to pass judgement on the constitutionality of government legislation when such matters should be left to Parliament.
Oh my God, I literally can't think of anything worse.
A written constitution would not only throw away our rich history of historic laws which are followed around the world thanks to the legacy of the British Empire, but it'll also be subject to tinkering of our moronic politicians meaning the stupid fads of today that they're obsessed with (ie, 'Equality and Diversity') will forever be enshrined in law even if a government is elected that wishes to amend those laws or completely scrap them, which is exactly what I would like to see.
And not only that, but you'll then get - as the article points out - judges making key decisions on policy depending entirely on how they view the law, which if you look at America and other countries often comes entirely down to the political composition of the Supreme Court at the time, with conservative leaning judges siding with the Republicans and the liberal judges siding with the Democrats. Do we want our courts made political in the same way? No, so keep parliament sovereign. IN ANY CASE even with a written constitution, the politicians and courts simply 're-interpret' the law to say anything they want it to say...... which you can see with the United States concerning military actions/war.
The Westminster system of government is known for being one of the most stable because it is so flexible. Just look at the number of revolutions we've had: one, and even that republican regime of Cromwell retained our constitutional set up.
Thankfully this debate has been going on for years, and there's little motivation for what would be an enormous and complicated task..... wrought with controversy over whether we have referendums on things like retaining a state church, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, use of referendums, the status of the devolved mickey mouse assemblys in Scotland/Wales and Northern Ireland and so on and so forth.
Given the constitutional piss up they've made of it in the past few decades, would you trust them to 'put it right'? Nah.
Thoughts?