Does the UK need a written Constitution?

Where is that laid down? As far as I'm aware her political power is executive but mostly theoretical, as she follows the advice of her Government. She has the power to refuse assent of a bill, to hire and fire a Prime Minister, and to open and shut Parliament. I'm unaware of the Monarch having an explicit, defined legal or political power to hold MPs to account. HM Government is held to account by HM Loyal Opposition; individual MPs are held to account by the Speaker & parliamentary committees, by their parties, and once every five years by their constituents.
The royal prerogative is almost entirely controlled through the advice of the PM or his/her cabinet. However in an emergency where there is no adequate precedent in common law, the monarch may exercise the prerogative independently. In effect, the source of the Monarch's authority lies in common law.
 
Ours has been perfectly functional for hundreds of years and only seems to be going wrong over the last few because the FTPA has removed the usual democratic check. The obvious solution is surely to remove the FTPA rather than set the whole thing on fire and start again from scratch.
I'd add only that the creation of the Supremes by Blair and the entanglement with ECJ has also opened the door to activist lawyers to meddle with executive prerogatives, largely to assuage single interest lobbying groups.

Not that this benefitted the Wide-mouth Frog and her retinue of vultures at all, oh no.....
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Indeed so: in theory it is to hold her MPs to account.

In that respect she has been rendered powerless, by Parliament itself. Should she risk intervening, over any issue, she will risk further punitive action which - if there are no further powers of which she might be stripped - leaves only her prestige and privileges as potential targets.

Simples.
I'm missing the issue here? You appear to be arguing strongly for an actual monarchy. I think most people prefer the crown to have purely theoretical powers.

None of which is especially relevant to a written constitution. Her roles are as well defined now as they would be if we codified the consitution; codification in itself wouldn't alter the relationship between the crown and parliament
 
Last edited:

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
In our unwritten constitution, silly :-D
So did you make up the Monarch's power to "hold her MPs to account", or is there any precedent for her to do so?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I'd add only that the creation of the Supremes by Blair and the entanglement with ECJ has also opened the door to activist lawyers to meddle with executive prerogatives, largely to assuage single interest lobbying groups.

Not that this benefitted the Wide-mouth Frog and her retinue of vultures at all, oh no.....
Indeed
The royal prerogative is almost entirely controlled through the advice of the PM or his/her cabinet. However in an emergency where there is no adequate precedent in common law, the monarch may exercise the prerogative independently. In effect, the source of the Monarch's authority lies in common law.
This was supposed to have caused problems with the start of WW1 and the King wanting to intervene with his cousins and being left behind by the PM!
 
If you read the thread in the US Constitution in wiki there is a faction that says the original meaning should be taken as the interpretation; known as originalism.
I have a copy of the US constitution to hand and yes I am an originalist. I think this shows through in my thoughts in that we should never permit our current morality to come through. If you like the concept that Magna Carta is the fundament of our law is flawed. Some of the concepts are others are not. If the constitution, Carta can move with the times fine but they are only narrow.
 

NSP

LE
I'm missing the issue here? You appear to be arguing strongly for an actual monarchy. I think most people prefer the crown to have purely theoretical powers.
I don't mind the notion of the Crown having actual powers for the time being. HMQ would certainly govern with more intelligence and dignity and wisdom and much less venality and self-interest than the shower of shite infesting her Parliament at the moment.
 
I wouldn't trust those Arrseclowns in parliament - of any political stripe
On this at least we are agreed.

But if - as you rightly say - we can't trust them with our democracy, because they are so self-interested, then there's no reason to trust them - full stop.

Not much of an argument there, for continuing the current status quo.
 
On this at least we are agreed.

But if - as you rightly say - we can't trust them with our democracy, because they are so self-interested, then there's no reason to trust them - full stop.

Not much of an argument there, for continuing the current status quo.
Splendid.

I await your plan for a solution.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Splendid.

I await your plan for a solution.
There isn't one if your problem with the system boils down to "I don't like politicians". There are no viable political systems for a country the size of the UK that don't involve some level of representative democracy.
 
There isn't one if your problem with the system boils down to "I don't like politicians". There are no viable political systems for a country the size of the UK that don't involve some level of representative democracy.
Whatever became of the plans for a People's Parliament?
 
There isn't one if your problem with the system boils down to "I don't like politicians". There are no viable political systems for a country the size of the UK that don't involve some level of representative democracy.
Kind of my point in asking. If his problem can be simply defined in terms of "I don't like Boris", then the solution is simply "someone else" - which isn't really a problem with democracy as much as personality.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
The Brexit threads have thrown up a very good discussion on the merits or otherwise of a written Constitution. Mainly by @Stonker and @Caecilius .
@Sixty has ageed to move the posts across to here for a more detailed discussion while not derailing, if that is possible, any Brexit/Boris thread.

Hopefully this evening will see the posts moved and the discussion continue.
 
Considering the legal profession's attempt to aid a foreign power during the Brexit negotiations, should we really trust them to come up with a written Constitution
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Considering the legal profession's attempt to aid a foreign power during the Brexit negotiations, should we really trust them to come up with a written Constitution
I'm more worried by politicians who think they are lawyers trying to get their party POV in as the Constitution.
 

Latest Threads

Top