Should the UK have a constitution and bill of rights
Discussion
Is it time the United Kingdom had a proper written constitution, bill of rights for its citizens, etc?, or do exiting laws adequately cover our personal freedoms?
To my mind, if we had such constitutional definitions and articles, this would help protect us from an overbearing interfering state that through successive administrations, define draconian laws with no apparent counterbalancing force, simply operating in a vacuum of apathy and confusion whereby they effectively 'move the 'goal posts' through executive powers (witness the abolishing of office of Lord Chancellor) when it suits them. It would principally define the relationship between citizen and state. As it stands at the moment, to use a modern day phrase, ‘we are owned’; and I don’t want to be owned any further. Or am I simply deluding myself, and it is a case of the deed has effectively been done, we’ve missed the boat and the next stop is a Federal Europe with a constitution drafted to only serve, protect and benefit a political empire with no recourse for its citizens?
It would be interesting to hear what you people think on this subject
To my mind, if we had such constitutional definitions and articles, this would help protect us from an overbearing interfering state that through successive administrations, define draconian laws with no apparent counterbalancing force, simply operating in a vacuum of apathy and confusion whereby they effectively 'move the 'goal posts' through executive powers (witness the abolishing of office of Lord Chancellor) when it suits them. It would principally define the relationship between citizen and state. As it stands at the moment, to use a modern day phrase, ‘we are owned’; and I don’t want to be owned any further. Or am I simply deluding myself, and it is a case of the deed has effectively been done, we’ve missed the boat and the next stop is a Federal Europe with a constitution drafted to only serve, protect and benefit a political empire with no recourse for its citizens?
It would be interesting to hear what you people think on this subject
As we have seen with incorporating the European convention on human rights into British law, it all depends on the judges who will be enforcing this new constitution. With the kind of 'activist' judges we have here it would be a disaster which would permanently entrench left wing policies.
Jaglover said:
As we have seen with incorporating the European convention on human rights into British law, it all depends on the judges who will be enforcing this new constitution. With the kind of 'activist' judges we have here it would be a disaster which would permanently entrench left wing policies.
What policies are those likely to be JagLover?
scorp said:
As we have seen with incorporating the European convention on human rights into British law, it all depends on the judges who will be enforcing this new constitution. With the kind of 'activist' judges we have here it would be a disaster which would permanently entrench left wing policies.
What policies are those likely to be JagLover?
Probably those that seem to value the crimminals rights over and above those of the victim would be a start.
scorp said:
As we have seen with incorporating the European convention on human rights into British law, it all depends on the judges who will be enforcing this new constitution. With the kind of 'activist' judges we have here it would be a disaster which would permanently entrench left wing policies.
What policies are those likely to be JagLover?
Welfare entitlement is likely to be one for example. You could easily see a situation where a UK 'supreme' court ruled that a certain welfare reform was 'unconsitutional'. As TeamD mentioned another significant area would be crime, more specifically measures used to combat it.
We have had a Bill Of Rights since 1689 and it's enshrined in law. It's the law that the metric martyrs use for their defence.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A700372
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A700372
I think it would be a good idea...every week someone is on here moaning at what rights his Tonyness is trying to take away from us.
As for the criminals/spongers issue. Simple - make sure that there is nothing in the Bill about rights to expect the state to support you, and some careful clauses around right to self-defence, perhaps.
As for the criminals/spongers issue. Simple - make sure that there is nothing in the Bill about rights to expect the state to support you, and some careful clauses around right to self-defence, perhaps.
Yeah you can imagine it:
1) All citizens shall have the freedom of speech (unless it offends any minorities, politicians, civil servants, your neighbour, your neighbour's busy-body friend)
2) All citizens have a right to a fair trial (unless you own a car, or a house, or have your identity stolen, or have your DNA taken without charge)
3) All citizens have the right to defend themselves, unless they're defending themself in which case they no longer have that right.
etc....
>> Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 2nd February 13:13
1) All citizens shall have the freedom of speech (unless it offends any minorities, politicians, civil servants, your neighbour, your neighbour's busy-body friend)
2) All citizens have a right to a fair trial (unless you own a car, or a house, or have your identity stolen, or have your DNA taken without charge)
3) All citizens have the right to defend themselves, unless they're defending themself in which case they no longer have that right.
etc....
>> Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 2nd February 13:13
havoc said:
I think it would be a good idea...every week someone is on here moaning at what rights his Tonyness is trying to take away from us.
As for the criminals/spongers issue. Simple - make sure that there is nothing in the Bill about rights to expect the state to support you, and some careful clauses around right to self-defence, perhaps.
But who would write this constitution which would guarantee only fundamental rights?. This government was involved in the writing of the European constitution, which dealt with such fundamental 'rights' as trade union policy.
The American constitution which is often held up as an example of a 'good' constitution is a product of enlightenment thinking, stating the fundamental rights of man, not ticking boxes to appease all the usual special interest groups.
And who will enforce this constitution?; the same judges who overrule school dress codes in the name of the European Convention on human rights. Judges such as these make a decision based on their personal prejudices then use whatever legislation is at hand to justify it. A constitution would increase their power massively.
We don't have a written constitution, because we are a Constitutional Monarchy with the requisite 'checks and balances' made through the use of Prerogative powers and with the House of Lords as a check to the Executive.
What should worry people more are the changes the current administration has made to the Upper House enabling a government with a strong majority to push through any legislation that it wishes.
What should worry people more are the changes the current administration has made to the Upper House enabling a government with a strong majority to push through any legislation that it wishes.
BliarOut said:
We have had a Bill Of Rights since 1689 and it's enshrined in law. It's the law that the metric martyrs use for their defence.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A700372
Which seems to be a charter to chasten a subversive and rapacious monarchy.
If we had something like The (U.S.) Bill (below) some of the recent laws that have been drafted/passed would not be in effect. I'm not an expert in these matters and don't assume to be, I present these comments/references in the spirit of the 'rights of man to be free', and to debate the merits thereof, so pedants, please refrain from pointing out that 'The Bill' was drafted 200+ years ago, and for a different soverign state, under a tyranical power.
(No demonstrations outside Parliment)
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(MP's setting their own remuneration)
Article II
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened
(No Council snoopers eyeing up your newly fitted bathroom)
Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(The non-alienable right to silence in court)
Article VII
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
(No eurocops hauling you off across a sovereign border)
Article VIII
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
J1mmyD said:
We don't have a written constitution, because we are a Constitutional Monarchy with the requisite 'checks and balances' made through the use of Prerogative powers and with the House of Lords as a check to the Executive.
What should worry people more are the changes the current administration has made to the Upper House enabling a government with a strong majority to push through any legislation that it wishes.
Jimmy,
I am worried, particularly with regards to your second paragraph. It's true, and its real; and effectively annuls and displaces your first paragraph. Such is the illusion of real and proper 'democracy' in these times...
I hate to say it, but the US constitution WOULD be one of the best places to start - don't think there's a more even-handed or comprehensive document anywhere in the world.
But I do agree that if our politicians got their hands on it it would have numerous 'unless' clauses written into it! (Ack's to Rowan Atkinson et.al.)
But I do agree that if our politicians got their hands on it it would have numerous 'unless' clauses written into it! (Ack's to Rowan Atkinson et.al.)
police state said:
We don't have a written constitution, because we are a Constitutional Monarchy with the requisite 'checks and balances' made through the use of Prerogative powers and with the House of Lords as a check to the Executive.
What should worry people more are the changes the current administration has made to the Upper House enabling a government with a strong majority to push through any legislation that it wishes.
Jimmy,
I am worried, particularly with regards to your second paragraph. It's true, and its real; and effectively annuls and displaces your first paragraph. Such is the illusion of real and proper 'democracy' in these times...
The House of Lords traditionally had a (small c) conservative bent. This has always been a thorn in the side of Labour (and before that Liberal) governments, but such was the nature of the British voters that we haven't had a Labour/Liberal government that's stayed in power for more than one term. We now have one that's had three consecutive terms.
The effect of this right wing Labour party is that while they have persued mainly conservative policies the left wing membership have brought in some very sweeping changes.
The House of Lords used to operate only partly as a political chamber (as in Party politics). The Lords was always envisioned as a reviewing Chamber inhabited by clergy, lawyers and ex-party politicians who could now act as 'statesmen' rather that party politicians. Some Lords were also ministers, but on the whole this was due to the increasing workload on the Commons rather than any real party machinations.
The current Labour governmant has politicised the Upper House to the point now that we should really consider whether a a second elected House is required. It would be interesting to see if we could find out how many new Lords have been appointed under the current governement and what their political persuations are.
If the Upper House is elected, we would effectively have a Senate with the powers to directly oppose the Prime Minister's Office and the Executive as a whole.
This has been a position we have been moving towards for almost a century since the last Liberal governemnt imposed the original Parliament Act. Blair and his party have pushed us to the point where an elected House must be seriously considered. Just who would make this move is the one thing that would stop it from ever happening. Whoever installs such legislation would be removing power from themselves.
Going back to the original question: I'm not a fan of written constitutions. A written constitution tells you what you, as an individual, can do and what you are entitled to. An unwritten constitution effectively tells you what you can't do and is far less unweildy so as to take in to account current (public) political thinking.
Anyway ... rant over.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff