You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
On the thread about the latest shootings in the US it has been remarked that the US Constitution is almost impossible to amend, especially given the resistance from a large part of the populace vis a vis gun control.
My question is how easy/difficult is it to change or amend the UK Constitution in comparison?
My question is how easy/difficult is it to change or amend the UK Constitution in comparison?
Piece of piss,
Try and find a paper copy....
What UK constitution? There's nothing written down, so one could argue that it is constantly evolving.
No single document, but the laws that we are governed by do exist. To that end you can choose that the complexity and number of laws will make it difficult or the change/interpretation of a single law will simplify.
what he said
We have one via all our laws, conventions etc just not in one document]The rules for changing it are the same as any other law - in the US they cannot have unconstitutional laws whereas we can have any law via a simple majority in parliament [ and the ascent of the Crown].
Its a swings and roundabout thing
We dont end up with anachronism but we could potentially have a despot who banned elections and nothing is enshrined in tablets of stone so to speak
What UK constitution? There's nothing written down, so be thankful for the European Court of Human Rights.
We don't have a written Constitution. We have the Magna Carta, and the Bill Of Rights, but, as far as I'm aware, neither carries the weight that the US Constitution carries, as neither has been fully enshrined into British law in the same way.
I'm happy to be corrected on this, because my knowledge of British legal rights is scant, to say the least, but that's my understanding.
There are many on here who know shitloads more than I ever will on the subject.
Well it turns out we have had a written constitution all along. I found it in my attic. It confers rather a lot of privileges on tall blokes and anyone who's slightly ginger it turns out.
it is written down as we have written laws we just dont have one document called a constitution
ITs often termed unwritten but it mean uncodified - ie not written in a single document
iirc, there's only two clauses in the Magna Carta that are still in force, but it was great while it lasted
Problem is, you can't change gun laws in the US. The law abiding people may give them up but the criminals will just laugh. The same criminals will then continue to sell to people who want them on the black market, and you won't even have the very slight controls you have now.
molly worng thread [ and I replied DOH
I understand that the UK doesn't have one single document etc, but that the collective body of Law and Statute regarding the Crown and Parliament are known as the Constitution. What i meant was, if a central tenet of British life and law such as the English Bill of Rights was to be amended how easily could Parliament do so - especially if the populace were against the idea.
[i]I understand that the UK doesn't have one single document etc, but that the collective body of Law and Statute regarding the Crown and Parliament are known as the Constitution[/i]
Is it, I'm guessing you're either not British or read fiction?
There is no UK Constitution.
And AFAIK the US Constitution can only be changed by (large) majorities in both Houses, so won't happen.
We don't have a written Constitution. We have the Magna Carta, and the Bill Of Rights, but, as far as I'm aware, neither carries the weight that the US Constitution carries, as neither has been fully enshrined into British law in the same way.
Oh, they're more than enshrined in law - and set out as laws that [i]cannot[/i] be repealed
Just that we've chosen, as a society, to conveniently ignore their inviolability.
It would appear that these people believe there is such a thing as the UK Constitution :-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/uk-constitution
Also answers some of my question but not all.
No they dont, they state quite early in the article that there is no such thing as a UK constitution, rather a mixture of laws and parliamentary acts that govern British life.
They even point out why this is, the UK has been stable for 1000 years, no revolutions and no need to start from scratch thus requiring some form of constitution.
They then inexplicably start referring to a UK constitution.....not worth reading after that massive contradiction.
Being an ancient and wise people we have no need for something as tacky as a constitution, we have constantly evolving laws, acts and rights that demonstrate to the rest of the heathen world what reasonable and adaptable people the British are.
They state quite early in the article that there is no such thing as a UK constitution
No they don't
a mixture of laws and parliamentary acts that govern British life.
What do you think a constitution is?
the UK has been stable for 1000 years, no revolutions
And 1688 was what exactly?
we have constantly evolving laws,
Which do you prefer?
[i]We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.[/i]
or
[i]do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.[/i]
The UK hasn't existed for 1,000 years. If that's a sign of the accuracy of that site I'll give it a miss.
Well no, they refer to a lack of a 'written' constitution and a lack of a single defining document but then say it is more accurate to say it is an uncodified constitution so i see no contradiction in their stance that a UK constitution exists but not in a form used by most other nations.
the UK has been stable for 1000 years
Tell that to Charles I
So it doesnt exist then?!
The article is clear that laws have evolved as they're needed which is surely better than being stuck with an outdated piece of paper like the yanks have which is going to prove to be a real ball ache if/when they decide to tackle their gun problem.
I like our system.
I quite like our system - as far as i understand it but i'm no constitutional scholar. Whish is why i put the question out there.
Just because it doesn't exist in a form similar to that of the US doesn't mean it does not exist.
Perhaps the fact that we're not a country full of retards (US) or revolutionaries that set fire to something whenever we dont get our own way (France) means that we dont need a simplistic written article to govern ourselves in this country?
Possibly not, but it's not that long since we were revolting and cutting up kings or booting them out of the country, we're not that different to the US or France.
did Magna Carta die for nothing?
IIRC Our consitution is one of conventions - little is statutory (or codified) - and as such there are little/no laws re changing it.
EDIT ZE are you saying that Parliament has bound itself? NOT POSSIBLE!
Precisely - hence my comment that we've ignored their inviolability.
If we looked at the intention at the time the BOR was made (a pepper V hart argument) then clearly their intention [i]was[/i] to bind future parliaments.
Regardless, MC was not initially a statute, it was a a constitutional settlement that bound the crown to recognise the common law, nothing to do with parliament - and if you read up on your Coke, then there's fairly strong arguments over the ability of parliament to legislate in contravention of the common law, and that any monarch that signs laws in contravention of the constitution is guilty of Treason...
And you wonder why parliament has chosen to ignore the BOR and legislate against our right to bear arms (where do you think the americans got their ideas from?)
Only if you are Protestant though, the Bill Of Rights specifically lays out the provisions for Protestants to bear arms against a Catholic enemy from within - or so i understood it...
for those arguing we have no constitution this would mean in extremis we have no rules about how we are goverened and that is prima facie bobbins
Because there is no one single document titled constitution doe snot mean there are no rules that constitute how we are governed
we even have a select committee in the place that governs us , on constitutional issues
To claim there is none is wrong and requires you taking a quite entrenched position and claim its fiction if you like. Its true to say there is no one document that sets down immutable principles but that does not mean we are without rules.
Try and get the House of Lords to overrule the House of Commons for example- they dont even try as they know the other place is constitutionally the primary law maker.
Nobody is saying there are no rules, what is being said is we dont have a constitution like America....which is correct, in a way ours is a more tangled web having evolved over centuries.....try and define it simply or try to subtract parts of it as a standalone constitution and there will be contradictory acts which can be held up against it....in a way our version of a 'constitution' is more free form and cannot be held in absolute like the American amendments....which is good, it allows for common sense.
I would re read the thread if you think no one is saying we dont have a constitution
Try and find a paper copy..MR mo
What UK constitution? - DruidH
What UK constitution? – Klunk
I understand that the UK doesn't have one single document etc, but that the collective body of Law and Statute regarding the Crown and Parliament are known as the Constitution
Is it, I'm guessing you're either not British or read fiction?
There is no UK Constitution.
br
I got bored there and you seem to have way of saying it like its a question rather than your opinion 😉
which is good, it allows for common sense.
It also allows for governments to take away things that most of us would view as sacrosanct
like the right to trial by jury, and freedom from imprisonment without trial, or taking away our right to free speech.
All the above being things we've seen increasing pressure on in the last decade, apparently for the greater good.
They are better at eating meat.
We are better at drinking beer.