Should Britain have a written Consitution?

[mattc16]

Re: Should Britain have a written Consitution?

I hate being called British. It's a term I've disliked since i was maybe 12 or 13 and starting to fully understand politics and things like that. I'm English, I was born in England, I have no links to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and to be honest, i prefer to disassociate myself with them, not because they are bad countries, simply because I don't understand them or their customs.

This is why I feel there shouldn't be a United Kingdom, as such. There's four countries in it, why split them up, it's like having a seperate continent or something. Rant over, onto the subject at hand.

As for a constitution, I don't feel we need one. The political system has worked well for countless years, so why change? As the quote goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe some people will disagree with me on this, but like trillobyite said, I find it extremely unlikely a tyrant will ever take control tof britain, we haven't been through two World Wars for that. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about factions in the UK, trillobyite, do you mean political parties, activist groups or what, please explain.

Anyway, theres my two pence, feel free to pick at it, always interested to hear other's ideas and thoughts.

[Eyoshi]

Re: Should Britain have a written Consitution?

Uh, wasn't there a constiution drafted in Britain a few centuries ago? I haven't brushed up my history, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in history a constitution was written and signed in the late 17th century.

Of course, even if there is not a constitution in England, there isn't really a need for it. In a sense, each country in the world is regulated. Back then, a constitution was needed to preserve rights and protect the people. However, there are now organizations that have a similar role, such as the United Nations. These organizations tend to raise their voice whenever a totalitarian government rises.

Of course, these thoughts are undeveloped. Not sure if all of this is correct.

[trillobyite]

Re: Should Britain have a written Consitution?

I hate being called British. It's a term I've disliked since i was maybe 12 or 13 and starting to fully understand politics and things like that. I'm English, I was born in England, I have no links to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and to be honest, i prefer to disassociate myself with them, not because they are bad countries, simply because I don't understand them or their customs.

This is why I feel there shouldn't be a United Kingdom, as such. There's four countries in it, why split them up, it's like having a seperate continent or something. Rant over, onto the subject at hand.

As for a constitution, I don't feel we need one. The political system has worked well for countless years, so why change? As the quote goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe some people will disagree with me on this, but like trillobyite said, I find it extremely unlikely a tyrant will ever take control tof britain, we haven't been through two World Wars for that. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about factions in the UK, trillobyite, do you mean political parties, activist groups or what, please explain.

Anyway, theres my two pence, feel free to pick at it, always interested to hear other's ideas and thoughts.

What I mean by factions is generally any group that can get an unbeatable majority in the Parliament. Here, this is from idebate.org, by Debbie Newman, and I think it summarizes what I'm trying to say best:

"Safeguards. At present, if a party has a majority in the House of Commons they can change the constitution. An example of this is Blair’s reform of the House of the Lords. He was able to completely change half of our legislature without a referendum or other means of checking consensus. A written constitution would act as a safeguard as it would make it difficult to change. For example you would have to have a 2/3 majority in both houses or a it would have to be passed by referendum."

Uh, wasn't there a constiution drafted in Britain a few centuries ago? I haven't brushed up my history, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in history a constitution was written and signed in the late 17th century.

Of course, even if there is not a constitution in England, there isn't really a need for it. In a sense, each country in the world is regulated. Back then, a constitution was needed to preserve rights and protect the people. However, there are now organizations that have a similar role, such as the United Nations. These organizations tend to raise their voice whenever a totalitarian government rises.

Of course, these thoughts are undeveloped. Not sure if all of this is correct.

I think you are thinking about the Magna Carta, which was actually more of a charter used by the nobility to limit the king's power at the time. It was not a written constitution but it is considered a major precedent to written laws for future countries. Also, the UN, as noble as one might perceive it to be, cannot handle all global problems on its own. Take a look at Somalia: anarchy reigns there to this day. In the Congo, 8 armies are competing for power and slaughtering/raping civilians along with the police. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of Christians are being slaughtered by janjaweed paramilitary forces. In Europe, there were all the issues in the Balkans. The UN can condemn and even send peacekeepers, but most deadly situations cannot truly be repaired by them. If you watch "Hotel Rwanda" it also explains when the UN has its limits. Every nation, regardless of a global organization dedicated to preserving peace, should take steps to prevent itself from being subjected to tyranny. However, we are talking about Britain, which is not even remotely a third world country and thus is not subjected to an immensely corrupt or easily exploited government, so you do have a point.

[D.S.C.]

Re: Should Britain have a written Consitution?

I believe that Britain, should stay the way it is. Obviously, some might prefer a written constitution, but there is such a thing as common sense. (Maybe some may say they lacked back then.) That aside, they like to be seen as individuals, they have their steering wheel on their right side which shows the world that they will distinguish themselves no matter what. If a constitution were to be placed, do you think they would model it after the U.S.'? With vague language and sorts? I highly doubt that, as long as parliament remains human and power doesn't consume them, they should be fine. Btw, I saw how they criticized the crap out of Tony Blair on Jon Stewarts Daily Show, and compared it to the U.S.'.... president, made me feel that if that is how Britain judges its officials, then they would have picked a suitable person for office. The U.S. has no sense in picking president or electing. I am not saying Bush is a bad guy, just that the most successful president's successor would have been a better choice. Maybe we wouldn't have blown all that surplus of money we had and got into such a horrible debt.