|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 25, 2010 20:12:28 GMT
A side issue, and probably a separate debate, but there are all kinds of very valid and convincing reasons why we should not have our constitution written down in a single document, not least because doing so hands the ultimate power over to judges instead of leaving it with Parliament where it belongs. The UK, of course, does have a constitution, and it's mostly written, but just in ordinary legislation which Parliament retains the power to change. I honestly can't see the advantage of having a single written document with special status. Parliament is emasculated, power resides with an increasingly presidential executive. Each time a royal has a legover there is a constitutional crisis. When Parliament goes off the rails and it has, the HoS cannot intervene for the simple reason that the HoS is unelected and we all know what the elected would say if the HoS did try to intervene. There is nothing wrong with codifying how the state should be governed. Its far better than the muddle we have. But I don't think we have a muddle at all. Bagehot's classic book (which I cannot bring myself to name) clearly outlined and identified the constitution as it existed in 1867. Since then virtually all constitutional changes have come from legislation, written down, available to all, and duly passed through the House of Commons. Your critique of the power of the Executive over the legislative is fair enough, and I agree with that. But a written constitution would not solve that particular problem, as Party discipline is the main reason why so many of our Parliamentarians behave in such a toothless fashion. It's great when a Parliamentarian resigns or leaves the Government, and is finally free, devoid now of political ambition, to do what a good PArliamentarian should do and speak out without fear of disfavour. A written constitution would not help.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 25, 2010 22:24:05 GMT
Parliament is emasculated, power resides with an increasingly presidential executive. Each time a royal has a legover there is a constitutional crisis. When Parliament goes off the rails and it has, the HoS cannot intervene for the simple reason that the HoS is unelected and we all know what the elected would say if the HoS did try to intervene. There is nothing wrong with codifying how the state should be governed. Its far better than the muddle we have. But I don't think we have a muddle at all. Bagehot's classic book (which I cannot bring myself to name) clearly outlined and identified the constitution as it existed in 1867. Since then virtually all constitutional changes have come from legislation, written down, available to all, and duly passed through the House of Commons. Your critique of the power of the Executive over the legislative is fair enough, and I agree with that. But a written constitution would not solve that particular problem, as Party discipline is the main reason why so many of our Parliamentarians behave in such a toothless fashion. It's great when a Parliamentarian resigns or leaves the Government, and is finally free, devoid now of political ambition, to do what a good PArliamentarian should do and speak out without fear of disfavour. A written constitution would not help. This is not 1867 Have you not seen what I have said about the system as it is and the parties operating within it? Your argument is tailored to the tired old paradigm, therefore it does not apply.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 26, 2010 8:45:00 GMT
But I don't think we have a muddle at all. Bagehot's classic book (which I cannot bring myself to name) clearly outlined and identified the constitution as it existed in 1867. Since then virtually all constitutional changes have come from legislation, written down, available to all, and duly passed through the House of Commons. Your critique of the power of the Executive over the legislative is fair enough, and I agree with that. But a written constitution would not solve that particular problem, as Party discipline is the main reason why so many of our Parliamentarians behave in such a toothless fashion. It's great when a Parliamentarian resigns or leaves the Government, and is finally free, devoid now of political ambition, to do what a good PArliamentarian should do and speak out without fear of disfavour. A written constitution would not help. This is not 1867 Have you not seen what I have said about the system as it is and the parties operating within it? Your argument is tailored to the tired old paradigm, therefore it does not apply. Fret, I read all that you say about the system, and agree or disagree with it to a greater or lesser extent depending on the issue. Having a written constitution is a bit of a shibboleth of those who want to see major reform in our political infrastructure such as yourself. And on that particular issue, I think the reformers are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 26, 2010 10:08:55 GMT
[ Having a written constitution is a bit of a shibboleth of those who want to see major reform in our political infrastructure such as yourself. And on that particular issue, I think the reformers are wrong. for once we are in agreement a writen consitution can be very hindering
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 26, 2010 10:40:02 GMT
This is not 1867 Have you not seen what I have said about the system as it is and the parties operating within it? Your argument is tailored to the tired old paradigm, therefore it does not apply. Fret, I read all that you say about the system, and agree or disagree with it to a greater or lesser extent depending on the issue. Having a written constitution is a bit of a shibboleth of those who want to see major reform in our political infrastructure such as yourself. And on that particular issue, I think the reformers are wrong. You are of course entitled to your thoughts, but you are mistaken. There is a huge body of law on the statute books, not even the lawyers are sure of anything are they. The US constitution can be read and understood by a sixth former in half an hour. And that is sadly lacking in this country, nobody knows what is in and what is not in our part-written, though mainly unwritten constitution. It is a muddle. Our original constitution is a greatly revered document, your line of argument would prohibit it in written form, I'd say that is most unwise. When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired..... embodied in that very same document. Its a blank canvas and an opportunity to get it right for once.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 26, 2010 17:39:47 GMT
One thought about the UK though. If we DID codify common and statute law into a written constitution, that would not be the end of it. For EU law takes precedence over member states law, and the EU could over-ride any or all of our so called constitution.
So why bother?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 26, 2010 17:46:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 26, 2010 19:50:44 GMT
One thought about the UK though. If we DID codify common and statute law into a written constitution, that would not be the end of it. For EU law takes precedence over member states law, and the EU could over-ride any or all of our so called constitution. So why bother? Every other EU member already has a written constitution.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 26, 2010 19:51:54 GMT
Fret, I read all that you say about the system, and agree or disagree with it to a greater or lesser extent depending on the issue. Having a written constitution is a bit of a shibboleth of those who want to see major reform in our political infrastructure such as yourself. And on that particular issue, I think the reformers are wrong. You are of course entitled to your thoughts, but you are mistaken. There is a huge body of law on the statute books, not even the lawyers are sure of anything are they. The US constitution can be read and understood by a sixth former in half an hour. And that is sadly lacking in this country, nobody knows what is in and what is not in our part-written, though mainly unwritten constitution. It is a muddle. Our original constitution is a greatly revered document, your line of argument would prohibit it in written form, I'd say that is most unwise. When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired..... embodied in that very same document. Its a blank canvas and an opportunity to get it right for once. I'm lost. There is no such thing as the 'original constitution' of the UK.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 26, 2010 22:09:05 GMT
You are of course entitled to your thoughts, but you are mistaken. There is a huge body of law on the statute books, not even the lawyers are sure of anything are they. The US constitution can be read and understood by a sixth former in half an hour. And that is sadly lacking in this country, nobody knows what is in and what is not in our part-written, though mainly unwritten constitution. It is a muddle. Our original constitution is a greatly revered document, your line of argument would prohibit it in written form, I'd say that is most unwise. When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired..... embodied in that very same document. Its a blank canvas and an opportunity to get it right for once. I'm lost. There is no such thing as the 'original constitution' of the UK. I said our, I should have said English; my mistake.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 26, 2010 22:10:23 GMT
I'm lost. There is no such thing as the 'original constitution' of the UK. I said our, I should have said English; my mistake. indeed fret..indeed
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 26, 2010 22:15:20 GMT
I said our, I should have said English; my mistake. indeed fret..indeed I'm glad someone else recognises Magna Carta, mouse.
|
|