Should the UK have a written constitution?

[Nye Bevan]

(Don't worry, no Second Amendment)

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (100%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[shenmue]

1. Yes!

[enlightenment]

2. Why?

Seriously. Why do they need one?

[Nye Bevan]

5. It makes me a little uneasy

when Parliament can pass laws on things like extending its term. And when laws can be passed that limit free speech. Compared to the US, a UK government with a healthy parliamentary majority has much more power, and while sometimes less "gridlock" can be an advantage, such power can be abused (as Mrs Thatcher's government showed). A written constitution would would redress this balance.

[enlightenment]

7. Thanks for the explanation. :)

While I agree - certainly with ideas of extending their own power - that Parliament is potentially a dangerous body without a set of rules, I'm not sure that a single written constitution is the answer.

Our Congress manages to do a bang-up job of running roughshod over the "law" on a regular basis, so it appears that a written constitution is no guarantee. Our Constitution has no actual power. It gives the authority of power to various bodies within government - but it relies on those bodies to follow the rules.

Our Constitution is remarkably vague - deliberately so - and that allows the branches of government such a degree of latitude that they often do things that on their face at least seem to be un-constitutional. What redress do we have? We have to go to the body designated in the same document and hope that they agree with our assessment. What happens when they don't? Or, how do we respond when the Senate changes the rules of how it operates (for example, filibuster or the "super-majority&quot ? Those changes fundamentally impact the power that body has and how politics affects us - but we have no recourse to demand even an accounting of why they made the changes.

The UK has a series of documents that together create the heart of their system. Taken together and considered wisely, those documents have more "power" (place more restrictions) on government than our Constitution - but like our single document, they are often avoided, misread, deliberately misinterpreted, or simply ignored.

All systems are rife with opportunity for abuse, I think. Whether the principles of government are encoded on one piece of paper or many doesn't change that. IMO - of course.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I'd feel a bit safer with one

At the moment, the European Convention on Human Rights functions as one, in terms of setting out the basic personal rights; but it's not very strong in its assertions, and there is the danger of the Tories taking us out of it. As far as the basic mechanics of the organisation of the state goes, I'm not so worried about one - the piecemeal legislation probably does an adequate job, and I worry that a constitution might entrench some aspects that could do with changing (such as the House of Lords). The USA's inability to change its constitution, in practice, doesn't look great.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Yes, though it should be more flexible, I think, than the US one

But I think something like the 'bill of rights' is important, to avoid abuses such as Thatcher's 'sus' laws; long-term detention without trial; PM going to war without sufficient consultation; etc.

I also think at the moment that there should be a constitutional mandate for the NHS and some similar public services, before this lot, and perhaps a still worse Tory-UKIP coalition of the future, manage to sell them off by stealth.

[Denzil_DC]

6. The problem with a written constitution is that the party or parties in power at the time

it was drafted would have a strong influence on its terms, which would then be difficult to alter.

Given the current trajectory of UK national politics, it could formalize quite reactionary policies.

[T_i_B]

8. Yes

I'm in favour of a proper written constitution in principle. However it would inevitably be written by politicians, who would inevitably put their own interests first, most likely by trying to ensure a permanent majority for their own party.