5 ms·

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a go

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over the line. It's not a mainstream political priority at all to my knowledge, so I'm mostly curious why you disagree!

llbbdd 1y ago
They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.
- vkou 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - clarionbell 1y ago
    Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act. The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur. If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.
    - foldr 1y ago
      200 years isn’t a very long time in British historical terms.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > Constitution is pretty clear on that question. Given that all three branches of government seems to be moving in lockstep on it, (with the military, the secret police, and the police all behind them), you are right - it is clear on that question. It's clear to all them that, no, anything he does goes, and no, the 14th doesn't actually mean anything. That's not how I parse it from a cursory reading, but who am I to nay-say the king?
      - diordiderot 1y ago
        [flagged]
- gargan 1y ago
  Biggest mistake the Americans did was codify their constitution. I'll probably be pilloried for that but look at the evidence: - US is about to have military on the streets during peacetime with no terror threat within a codified constitution - UK has had military on the streets in response to terrorism in Northern Ireland (a real threat) and not for decades. The UK constitution is uncodified and spread over many (10+?) documents ranging from Magna Carta in the 1200s to the Bill of Rights in the 1600s to documents written in the 1800s and then more modern Acts of Parliament. Importantly the UK constitution can slowly change which means the UK has never had a revolution and never will do. Whereas the US constitution is rigid which achieves the opposite: when it does change it'll be dramatic and as a result of another violent revolution.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    Political systems do not exist in a vacuum, but integrate into a specific ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape. In a nation of immigrants with frequent demographic changes, having a written constitution anchors the country and prevents some capture of the government.
    - gargan 1y ago
      The UK and US are both equally nations of immigrants in 2025 at about 16% of the population being born abroad. The UK constitution is written but uncodified and unites the country under the King. The constitution can slowly change to deal with immigration, but in the US they're stuck with either what you have or violent revolution...
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        I was referring to when the political systems were set in place. When the UK became a parliamentary monarchy, no one could dream of becoming "a nation of immigrants," while in the case of the US, it was obvious that it was and would be for the next century, at least. The US political regime was designed for stability by lawyers, which has worked quite well for the country so far. In the case of the UK, the lack of a constitution can also be quite dangerous as it allows abuse and doesn't guarantee any protection of basic rights or even democracy. This can work well if the country is mono-ethnic, with elites and plebeians sharing a common culture. It can also easily derail in pluri-cultural settings where ethnicities compete against each other to impose their standards or acquire resources from the state. This is what happens in Africa, for instance, and one of the reasons for the weakness of the state there.
- bratbag 1y ago
  Pass. Im glad not to be confined by historical rules invented by people who could not hope to predict the future, and would not choose to put that kind of burden on my descendents.
  - diordiderot 1y ago
    Amendments can be made with a super-majority's approval
jalapenos 1y ago
It's quite farcical to witness a whole thread of debate about whether there will be a British constitution when it already exists. People are so quick to start typing their opinions to pretend how smart they are that they forget they have to know things first.

llbbdd 1y ago

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

vkou 1y ago
[flagged]
- clarionbell 1y ago
  Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act. The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur. If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.
  - foldr 1y ago
    200 years isn’t a very long time in British historical terms.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Constitution is pretty clear on that question. Given that all three branches of government seems to be moving in lockstep on it, (with the military, the secret police, and the police all behind them), you are right - it is clear on that question. It's clear to all them that, no, anything he does goes, and no, the 14th doesn't actually mean anything. That's not how I parse it from a cursory reading, but who am I to nay-say the king?
    - diordiderot 1y ago
      [flagged]
gargan 1y ago
Biggest mistake the Americans did was codify their constitution. I'll probably be pilloried for that but look at the evidence: - US is about to have military on the streets during peacetime with no terror threat within a codified constitution - UK has had military on the streets in response to terrorism in Northern Ireland (a real threat) and not for decades. The UK constitution is uncodified and spread over many (10+?) documents ranging from Magna Carta in the 1200s to the Bill of Rights in the 1600s to documents written in the 1800s and then more modern Acts of Parliament. Importantly the UK constitution can slowly change which means the UK has never had a revolution and never will do. Whereas the US constitution is rigid which achieves the opposite: when it does change it'll be dramatic and as a result of another violent revolution.
- Saline9515 1y ago
  Political systems do not exist in a vacuum, but integrate into a specific ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape. In a nation of immigrants with frequent demographic changes, having a written constitution anchors the country and prevents some capture of the government.
  - gargan 1y ago
    The UK and US are both equally nations of immigrants in 2025 at about 16% of the population being born abroad. The UK constitution is written but uncodified and unites the country under the King. The constitution can slowly change to deal with immigration, but in the US they're stuck with either what you have or violent revolution...
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      I was referring to when the political systems were set in place. When the UK became a parliamentary monarchy, no one could dream of becoming "a nation of immigrants," while in the case of the US, it was obvious that it was and would be for the next century, at least. The US political regime was designed for stability by lawyers, which has worked quite well for the country so far. In the case of the UK, the lack of a constitution can also be quite dangerous as it allows abuse and doesn't guarantee any protection of basic rights or even democracy. This can work well if the country is mono-ethnic, with elites and plebeians sharing a common culture. It can also easily derail in pluri-cultural settings where ethnicities compete against each other to impose their standards or acquire resources from the state. This is what happens in Africa, for instance, and one of the reasons for the weakness of the state there.
bratbag 1y ago
Pass. Im glad not to be confined by historical rules invented by people who could not hope to predict the future, and would not choose to put that kind of burden on my descendents.
- diordiderot 1y ago
  Amendments can be made with a super-majority's approval

jalapenos 1y ago

It's quite farcical to witness a whole thread of debate about whether there will be a British constitution when it already exists. People are so quick to start typing their opinions to pretend how smart they are that they forget they have to know things first.