4 ms·

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution: > The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the insti

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution: > The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document. Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com... - a publication from 2015 which considered and proposed a written constitution. But other definitions include unwritten things like customs and conventions. For example: > It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works. https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20noted%20that,difficult%20to%20identify%20and%20understand. https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-cons...

mathiaspoint 1y ago
Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.
- wasabi991011 1y ago
  The Bill of Rights or the Habeus Corpus meaningfully constrains the states power, and are cited in court proceedings. Just because it isn't 1 document like in the US, it doesn't mean it's not a constitution. I think what you mean by "contemporary connotation" with "American connotation".
- speerer 1y ago
  Do you mean in the USA, perhaps? It's used more prevalently there, I think it's more likely for an average citizen to refer to a document than a collection of laws and customs. But I don't think that contex overtakes the original meaning.
  - vinay427 1y ago
    The GP comment specifically refers to the contemporary connotation, and at least in English there is some consensus around constitutional governments in this modern sense (e.g. Ireland, India, Germany, etc.) as opposed to those that aren’t.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  In the UK that would probably be the Magna Carta [0] which is a written document that constrains the monarch's power, and the monarch was the state at that time (1215). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
  - mathiaspoint 1y ago
    That's my point though. The monarch has so little power now it's irrelevant and the democratic government is out of control.
- milesrout 1y ago
  [dead]
- qcnguy 1y ago
  The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court. The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling back of parts of the British constitution. It would be a good thing because the equivalents of the American Constitution are much more vaguely written, and in practice do nothing to protect anybody's rights whilst allowing left-wing judges to rampantly abuse their position by issuing nonsensical judgments that advance left-wing priorities. That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions, which is in effect a rollback of the Constitution. And this position is very popular.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    >> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit. Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was given to a foreign government borders on Russian trolling, it's just so extremely untrue. >>And this position is very popular. Which one? And with whom?
    - traceroute66 1y ago
      > UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table. The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.
      - qcnguy 1y ago
        If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying. In reality the exceptions were mostly a work of fiction. For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law. Then the EU did that anyway, so the UK got a "carve out" written into the treaties, and it was reported as such to the public. Then the ECJ ruled that it wasn't allowed to have such a carveout and would have to enforce ECHR and ECJ rulings on human rights anyway. In other words: people were lied to. There was no carveout, not even when every country signed a treaty that spelled out one clear as day. This is how the EU rolls.

mathiaspoint 1y ago

Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.

wasabi991011 1y ago
The Bill of Rights or the Habeus Corpus meaningfully constrains the states power, and are cited in court proceedings. Just because it isn't 1 document like in the US, it doesn't mean it's not a constitution. I think what you mean by "contemporary connotation" with "American connotation".
speerer 1y ago
Do you mean in the USA, perhaps? It's used more prevalently there, I think it's more likely for an average citizen to refer to a document than a collection of laws and customs. But I don't think that contex overtakes the original meaning.
- vinay427 1y ago
  The GP comment specifically refers to the contemporary connotation, and at least in English there is some consensus around constitutional governments in this modern sense (e.g. Ireland, India, Germany, etc.) as opposed to those that aren’t.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
In the UK that would probably be the Magna Carta [0] which is a written document that constrains the monarch's power, and the monarch was the state at that time (1215). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  That's my point though. The monarch has so little power now it's irrelevant and the democratic government is out of control.
milesrout 1y ago
[dead]
qcnguy 1y ago
The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court. The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling back of parts of the British constitution. It would be a good thing because the equivalents of the American Constitution are much more vaguely written, and in practice do nothing to protect anybody's rights whilst allowing left-wing judges to rampantly abuse their position by issuing nonsensical judgments that advance left-wing priorities. That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions, which is in effect a rollback of the Constitution. And this position is very popular.
- gambiting 1y ago
  >> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit. Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was given to a foreign government borders on Russian trolling, it's just so extremely untrue. >>And this position is very popular. Which one? And with whom?
  - traceroute66 1y ago
    > UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table. The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying. In reality the exceptions were mostly a work of fiction. For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law. Then the EU did that anyway, so the UK got a "carve out" written into the treaties, and it was reported as such to the public. Then the ECJ ruled that it wasn't allowed to have such a carveout and would have to enforce ECHR and ECJ rulings on human rights anyway. In other words: people were lied to. There was no carveout, not even when every country signed a treaty that spelled out one clear as day. This is how the EU rolls.