Comments on: Why I’d like a British constitution

By: Jennie

Jennie — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:18:38 +0000

We have a constitution. If we didn’t have a constitution then every single law degree in the country wouldn’t have a constitutional law module. If you need someone to write it down for you, there’s any number of constitutional law textbooks available in your local library…

By: chrisc

chrisc — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:53 +0000

Extremely interesting lecture on the concept of the British Constitution by Prof Vernon Bogdanor linked below.

It would help of course if we could make our own laws, but we have happily subcontracted / surrendered (depending on point of view) much of that tedious business to the EU.

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=534

By: ad

ad — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:27:38 +0000

I think the most important question is what goes into a constitution. Roger has a very good point: a constitution can be used to enslave people as easily as free them.

All you need is something incomprehensibly complicated which buys off the right lobby groups. Then you can put anything you like into it.

By: Gracchi

Gracchi — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:02:58 +0000

I worry Sunny about the fossilising effect of a constitution on the UK. To take up your point about Britishness, Britishness is something that has changed throughout history- and I think that British identity at the moment is in flux again, I worry that we might fix in stone a set of rules defining ourselves which actually don’t meet later needs. Its also worth establishing what precisely a constitution would do. I am less worried about a settlement that defines processes- because obviously the outcomes then can change- but something that defines anything bar the broadest sense of outcome means that you run the danger of fossilisation. I wonder as well whether you really want a constitution or a more adequate symbol of the state- why do you think a constitution would create loyalty and is it its constitutionality that would create that loyalty.

By: anticant

anticant — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:32:35 +0000

What we need is not so much a written constitution [which in the USA has a fossilising influence on politics as well as a symbolic one] as wholesale and piecemeal reform of our political institutions to give more power to voters and less to bloated, bankrupt [and corrupt] party machines. First and foremost, we need genuine proportional representation – not the ‘party list’ variety. A separate parliament for England to get rid of the overweening Scottish influence in Westminster affairs. And several other measures to involve citizens much more in consultative processes preparatory to legislation, so that we don’t feel our influence is limited to rubber-stamp voting once every few years. The ‘democratic deficit’ problem is in essence to devise ways in which to prevent small tails wagging large dogs. A written constitution could be one element in this, but unless it is extremely carefully framed it might do more harm than good. People aren’t stupid. They know that all the NuLab parade of consultative processes through ‘focus groups’ etc. is just a facade, and until they feel their views will really be taken into account they will continue to be apathetic.

By: Roger Thornhill

Roger Thornhill — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:26:20 +0000

How about just upholding the one we got in 1689?

A Constitution should be about protecting the citizen from the State, not “rights”, which tend to end up becoming the obligations of others.

By: thomas

thomas — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:19:45 +0000

I have always been amused by the old quote that the Americans required a constitution to prove that they weren’t British. This point withstands all subsequent applications.

In fact isn’t it the charm of Britishness the perverse intangibiliy of it? Why try to dissolve our exceptionalism by codifying our identity?

I concur with your assertion, Sunny, that it is part of your agenda to push for a constitution as you have the freedom to express your political views, although this case also indicates the extent of your flawed ‘leftist’ belief in liberty as you wish define the limits of dissent by prejudicing, presupposing or preventing the case for their active justification – this would be an unhealthy state of affairs. Surely any constitution is by definition unconstitutional!

Perhaps we could engage in a dialogue on the principles and logic of common law? The assurance of good government through legitmacy based on relevance and agreement, rather than force of might?

Logic demands it’s own conclusions: freedom is not bound, least of all by opinion.