3 ms·

Its not that simple. There is a body of constitutional law. There is extensive law governing what powers ministers have - powers are granted to them by legisla

Its not that simple. There is a body of constitutional law. There is extensive law governing what powers ministers have - powers are granted to them by legislation. There are human rights granted by law and treaty. Everything from some clauses of the Magna Carta that are still in force https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... to the European Convention on Human Rights.

philwelch 2y ago
And thanks to parliamentary supremacy any and all of those protections can be repealed by a simple majority of the House of Commons.
- graemep 2y ago
  True, but that is a long way from how I read the comment I replied too
  - philwelch 2y ago
    In countries that actually have a strong constitution—the US is the primary example though I hope others exist—the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and is, by design, difficult to amend. When legislatures pass laws that exceed the bounds of the Constitution, the courts strike down those laws as null and void. In that sense, Britain does not have a constitution. Obviously it has a constitution in some sense, because there is always some set of laws, norms, traditions, and historical precedents that constitute the basis of government. But this is a much weaker sense of the term. For instance, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a “constitutional” law that supposedly made it impossible to call a snap election, but a snap election was nonetheless called in 2019 via the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which only required a simple majority because it had equivalent authority to the FTPA itself.
    - tengwar2 2y ago
      No, in that sense the UK does not have an American-style constitution - no more, no less. It is not accidental that Parliament can reverse any decision taken by an earlier Parliament: in fact it is one of the most important parts of the constitution that no Parliament can take a decision which binds a later one. It is different from the American design, yes, but the way in which the American constitution is used does not seem praiseworthy, not does it suggest that it would be wise to copy it.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        The Bill of Rights begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." before enumerating some of the basic human rights that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from infringing. I think it is highly praiseworthy indeed that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from infringing on basic human rights. It is also highly praiseworthy that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from forming a kangaroo court to sentence the head of state to death or from subsequently installing a military dictatorship (which is the exact historical precedent whence parliamentary supremacy was established).
        tengwar2 2y ago
        And how's that going for you at the moment? You have a supreme court which has just decided that the president is effectively outside the reach of the law. This was in response to a case where the outgoing president attempted to overthrow the results of an election and establish a dictatorship. As for the trial of Charles I - that was anything but a kangaroo court. Great care was taken to give him a fair trial, while establishing the principle that no-one was above the law.
        philwelch 2y ago
        > And how's that going for you at the moment? Much better than it is for the UK. Most of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights was carried over from English common law. Britain has since explicitly abolished some of them and openly carves out exceptions to the others. How many people in Britain have been jailed for mean tweets? > You have a supreme court which has just decided that the president is effectively outside the reach of the law. That’s a false oversimplification of that ruling. > As for the trial of Charles I - that was anything but a kangaroo court. Great care was taken to give him a fair trial, while establishing the principle that no-one was above the law. Charles I, the king, was charged with treason, which was defined prior to that trial as disloyalty to the king. The king was disloyal to the king? It’s complete nonsense and they were clearly making it up as they went along. The English Civil War was a violent revolution that overthrew the previous system of government and imposed a new one by force of arms. I’m not against that in principle but at least the American revolutionaries were honest that that’s what they were doing.
callamdelaney 2y ago
I'd like to take this moment to thank the European Union for our human rights /s
- foldr 2y ago
  No /s required. You can see a list of landmark judgments here, some of which apply to the UK. (Although you’re confusing the EU with the Council of Europe.) https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-judgments https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - callamdelaney 2y ago
    So now we need a council of Europe referendum? As you know human rights existed long before somebody decided to sign away our interpretation of them to a foreign body. Weird how the right to liberty and security doesn't apply to native populations.
  - dbdr 2y ago
    Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

philwelch 2y ago

And thanks to parliamentary supremacy any and all of those protections can be repealed by a simple majority of the House of Commons.

graemep 2y ago
True, but that is a long way from how I read the comment I replied too
- philwelch 2y ago
  In countries that actually have a strong constitution—the US is the primary example though I hope others exist—the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and is, by design, difficult to amend. When legislatures pass laws that exceed the bounds of the Constitution, the courts strike down those laws as null and void. In that sense, Britain does not have a constitution. Obviously it has a constitution in some sense, because there is always some set of laws, norms, traditions, and historical precedents that constitute the basis of government. But this is a much weaker sense of the term. For instance, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a “constitutional” law that supposedly made it impossible to call a snap election, but a snap election was nonetheless called in 2019 via the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which only required a simple majority because it had equivalent authority to the FTPA itself.
  - tengwar2 2y ago
    No, in that sense the UK does not have an American-style constitution - no more, no less. It is not accidental that Parliament can reverse any decision taken by an earlier Parliament: in fact it is one of the most important parts of the constitution that no Parliament can take a decision which binds a later one. It is different from the American design, yes, but the way in which the American constitution is used does not seem praiseworthy, not does it suggest that it would be wise to copy it.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      The Bill of Rights begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." before enumerating some of the basic human rights that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from infringing. I think it is highly praiseworthy indeed that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from infringing on basic human rights. It is also highly praiseworthy that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from forming a kangaroo court to sentence the head of state to death or from subsequently installing a military dictatorship (which is the exact historical precedent whence parliamentary supremacy was established).
      - tengwar2 2y ago
        And how's that going for you at the moment? You have a supreme court which has just decided that the president is effectively outside the reach of the law. This was in response to a case where the outgoing president attempted to overthrow the results of an election and establish a dictatorship. As for the trial of Charles I - that was anything but a kangaroo court. Great care was taken to give him a fair trial, while establishing the principle that no-one was above the law.
        philwelch 2y ago
        > And how's that going for you at the moment? Much better than it is for the UK. Most of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights was carried over from English common law. Britain has since explicitly abolished some of them and openly carves out exceptions to the others. How many people in Britain have been jailed for mean tweets? > You have a supreme court which has just decided that the president is effectively outside the reach of the law. That’s a false oversimplification of that ruling. > As for the trial of Charles I - that was anything but a kangaroo court. Great care was taken to give him a fair trial, while establishing the principle that no-one was above the law. Charles I, the king, was charged with treason, which was defined prior to that trial as disloyalty to the king. The king was disloyal to the king? It’s complete nonsense and they were clearly making it up as they went along. The English Civil War was a violent revolution that overthrew the previous system of government and imposed a new one by force of arms. I’m not against that in principle but at least the American revolutionaries were honest that that’s what they were doing.

callamdelaney 2y ago

I'd like to take this moment to thank the European Union for our human rights /s

foldr 2y ago
No /s required. You can see a list of landmark judgments here, some of which apply to the UK. (Although you’re confusing the EU with the Council of Europe.) https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-judgments https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- callamdelaney 2y ago
  So now we need a council of Europe referendum? As you know human rights existed long before somebody decided to sign away our interpretation of them to a foreign body. Weird how the right to liberty and security doesn't apply to native populations.
- dbdr 2y ago
  Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA