2 ms·
Yup, that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution.
by glitchc 3y ago
Yup, that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution.
- arethuza 3y agoIt doesn't have a codified constitution in the US sense but it does have a constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin... Edit: I would certainly agree that having constitution in this form isn't a great idea...
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoA written constitution doesn't really seem to work out better, though, does it?
- simonh 3y agoFrankly, the US system isn't exactly a resounding vindication of written constitutions either. Arguably the UK system has displayed considerably greater flexibility. For example the US president is still basically an elected George III.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dfawcus 3y agoWell it does, in written bits in various places, and some as precedent. However it is a bit more complex. England has a constitution (that collection above), Scotland has a different (and somewhat incompatible) constitution. The incompatibility being where the seat of Sovereignty lies. In Scotland with the people, in England with the Monarch (but wrested away by Parliament). So when the two countries formed the new state of Great Britain, and dissolved their prior states, they granted it a minimal constitution. However they couldn't grant more than they had, and the Scottish grantors did not hold sovereignty. Hence claiming that UK Parliament is sovereign is to presume that England annexed Scotland. That continuing incompatibility is (IMO) why we've never had a single written GB/UK constitution, and probably never will. It will require addressing the fact that we're acting as if Scotland was annexed, and to put that in writing will cause its own problems.