6 ms·

There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible b

There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.

itisit 4y ago
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
- haltingproblem 4y ago
  This is not the constitution but the product of a 5-year committee to codify a new constitution.
mrcsd 4y ago
Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
- haltingproblem 4y ago
  From your link: The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
  - mrcsd 4y ago
    Of course I agree that there is no written constitution, I said as much above. But there _is_ a constitution. Constitutions do not have to be written, unless you think otherwise?
    - brainfish 4y ago
      If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial. Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
        illiac786 4y ago
        The majority would suffice.
        johnthewise 4y ago
        But those who do not agree with it do not have any other custom or tradition which they claim is actually the constitution. Original claim stands on the argument that if there was really a single constitution, it would be trivial to write it down, not that everyone needs to agree on it, which is not a viable criteria anyway to test if something is constitution or not.
      - mrcsd 4y ago
        Leaving aside whether there is only one constitution, when has writing any governing document ever been trivial? Literally, humanity has struggled and continues to struggle to write down and effectively communicate even documents of much lesser importance, API documentation or text books for example. I'm sorry but I don't see how this point can be made seriously.
tablespoon 4y ago
> There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold. You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).
- MagnumOpus 4y ago
  The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored. A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored. IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it. If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
- hhjinks 4y ago
  What actually matters is that those breaking the constitution, be it written or not, can be held criminally liable. Can you be held criminally liable for breaking "a set of customs and principles" in the UK?
  - 4y ago
chrisseaton 4y ago
Why do you think a constitution has to be written? Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down? North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?
- illiac786 4y ago
  If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc. Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
  - Bancakes 4y ago
    Oh like USA's endless amendment debates and "common sense X" acts?
    - illiac786 4y ago
      yep, still better. “less worse” might be a better term here though. The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
      - Bancakes 4y ago
        Well that is within the context of young, impressionable, geopolitically and economically sheltered people expressing emotional views. So it's good that we don't enact these amendments on a whim

There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.

itisit 4y ago

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...

haltingproblem 4y ago
This is not the constitution but the product of a 5-year committee to codify a new constitution.

mrcsd 4y ago

Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

haltingproblem 4y ago
From your link: The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
- mrcsd 4y ago
  Of course I agree that there is no written constitution, I said as much above. But there _is_ a constitution. Constitutions do not have to be written, unless you think otherwise?
  - brainfish 4y ago
    If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial. Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
      - illiac786 4y ago
        The majority would suffice.
      - johnthewise 4y ago
        But those who do not agree with it do not have any other custom or tradition which they claim is actually the constitution. Original claim stands on the argument that if there was really a single constitution, it would be trivial to write it down, not that everyone needs to agree on it, which is not a viable criteria anyway to test if something is constitution or not.
    - mrcsd 4y ago
      Leaving aside whether there is only one constitution, when has writing any governing document ever been trivial? Literally, humanity has struggled and continues to struggle to write down and effectively communicate even documents of much lesser importance, API documentation or text books for example. I'm sorry but I don't see how this point can be made seriously.

tablespoon 4y ago

> There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold. You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).

MagnumOpus 4y ago
The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored. A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored. IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it. If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
hhjinks 4y ago
What actually matters is that those breaking the constitution, be it written or not, can be held criminally liable. Can you be held criminally liable for breaking "a set of customs and principles" in the UK?
- 4y ago

chrisseaton 4y ago

Why do you think a constitution has to be written? Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down? North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?

illiac786 4y ago
If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc. Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
- Bancakes 4y ago
  Oh like USA's endless amendment debates and "common sense X" acts?
  - illiac786 4y ago
    yep, still better. “less worse” might be a better term here though. The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
    - Bancakes 4y ago
      Well that is within the context of young, impressionable, geopolitically and economically sheltered people expressing emotional views. So it's good that we don't enact these amendments on a whim