Our Constitution cannot be changed by anyone but the people of the country. No one is above the law or below. The people must inner stand their Constitution before this could be considered.
Have to agree that a written constitution is the way to go, though I'd only go so far as to establish a set of rules for entrenchment and ratification via referendum rather than attempting to write a big fancy document. That way we can rely on a slightly modified political process to get stuff entrenched. I think where Sir Robert's argument goes most awry is his assertions that Parliament has the right to modify the constitution by virtue of being an elected body. I contest that. While I accept that Parliament is, _lawfully speaking_ an elected body, but there's no escaping the fact that we almost never have governments elected with majority support of the electorate. Likewise with most MPs for that matter. For example, in 2015, the MP for Belfast South was elected on a mere 24.5% of the vote; and the government that was produced didn't do much better, being elected on a mere 36.8% of the vote. How anyone can suggest that this counts as a democratic mandate is beyond me, particularly when asserting that these governments then have a mandate to alter our constitution. This is made even more blatant since the current "duly elected" party lost the London Mayor elections, and so changed how London Mayors are elected to First Past The Post, a voting system known for favouring two-party systems. _I wonder why they did that._ This wouldn't have been possible if the right to free, fair, and representative elections were enshrined and entrenched. We must have rules to govern those who govern us, or they'll run amok, we we continue to bear witness to.
The US federal constitution is a good example, it actually is rather lean, and enumerates what are the federal powers and what the federal government is strictly forbidden to do. It leaves ample flexibility for the states to do as they please for the most part as self governing, and each of the 50 states have their own constitution as well. Their Bill of Rights is especially good written down as the English equivalent has largely been ignored because it isn't codified.
@@Speegs23 The US Constitution is actually the example of what _NOT_ to do. The US Bill of Rights is not particularly well written or maintained. How can the First Amendment apply to States when the first word is "Congress"? The 14th Amendment changed things? Where? Where does it say that? Why hasn't the First Amendment's text been updated? The US Constitution is a fantastic example of the law not being what it means in the text. The UK Bill of Rights _is_ codified, see the Bill of Rights act 1688, from which the US Constitution borrowed liberally from. And the modern equivalent, the Human Rights Act, is not largely ignored at all. What are you talking about?
@lodgin I think it's the argument that it can be ignored or threats can be made that government will amend the act if not codified as a Constitutional Law superior to all other laws including acts of parliament. Look at what government said after London Bombings, 2009 brown government on hra on criminals and asylum seekers, and BoJos Bill of Rights bill
Letter of the law v spirit of the law. It boils down to that. We all see how lawyers and political activists can reinterpret definitions and play mischief with language. I'll stick with the spirit of the law.
Arnt the rights written in the HRA and Equality Act? Why can't people reinterpret definitions of those wirrten words? It would just be putting those 2 protected statutes to a higher level of protection
There is no British Constitution we have an English Constitution that goes back over a thousand years, and we share that with Wales. Scotland has its own constitution, hence, why its legal system is different to ours. The English and Scots Constitution has been suppressed, subverted and replaced by a monstrosity they call the United Kingdom Constitution which is why the system is now so venal and why they are allowing all the illegal immigrants in which is to our detriment and expense. I will let the House of Commons explain it to you in simple terms and remind you that Parliament is neither Sovereign nor is it Supreme: ". . . all Sovereign, Legislative, and Judicial Powers are the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated those their Original Powers to others, in Trust, for the Benefit of the Community, yet the Rights themselves are reserved by the People, and cannot be absolutely parted with by the People to those Persons who are employed to conduct the Business of the State.” It continues, “That the Constitution of England is held by the King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the People, in Trust, for the Benefit of the People; and though these Trustees may regulate and improve the Constitution, yet they cannot alter or subvert it without committing Treason against the Nation . . . That Magna Charta, or THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, . . . the Constitution of England, which are in and by them respectively declared . . ." Volume 49 of the Journals of the House of Commons (1783). Page 663
If you believe 'The Crown' and don't get the original 'Yes Minister' then you don't understand enough to think that the USAs codified constitution is an improvement on the English/British Constitution. Culture matters in these things. To be fair, the lack of knowledge was confessed to, very charmingly, from the beginning.
53:09 yet another mistake by Buckland. The Human Rights Act 1998 is much more than a means for making arguments at a domestic level. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states: Acts of public authorities. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
I do not want political activist and unaccountable judges having the power to overule Parliament and the elected government, who are accountable to the people and can be ousted. The USA has politically appointed activist judges who are not directly accountable, cannot be ousted, and can overrule government and elected politicians in the US Congress. In recent decades the Labour Party made changes to our Connstitutional arrangements that.are somewhat American, such as the Supreme Court, to replace the House of Lords and Law Lords as the court of final Appeal.
Newsflash, we already have political judges. A constitution does not mean our supreme court would now operate in a different way. It would just have powers to overule decision which are unconstitutional. How is this a bad thing?
what i would have brought in is the fact that the American constitution is the number one reason why the extreme right and left have fanatics and that a written constitution is a religious figure in a codified law system. While the unwritten constitution of the UK creates less fanatical parties and members of society. We do not have people dying just so people can protect an amendment.
Balderdash, there are fanatics in the UK, you even have volatile nationalist separatist parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland and civil unrest and domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland until 1997 . What you don't have are a spirited national identity or pride anymore, and Brexit was the last vestige of national identity trying to prevent its inevitable extinction. I don't think a nation with a state church and monarch in the 21st century is in any position to virtue signal at a republican country that seceded from your empire because you didn't protect their rights or give them representation in parliament. You are literally British subjects, the Americans are citizens. And in matters of international affairs you are even subjects to the Americans.
A constitution should only come after political reform. Two elected chambers in a proportional manner, in a modern centralized building with the houses of parliament becoming an open free museum.
UK it’s safe country with no wars , laws democracy human rights free education free health care free housing socialising , career opportunities , people are friendly & polite , buildings history art churches museums , universities, every culture party club , every music genre festival or concert , shopping clothing , start a business , soo many more benefits plus freedom of religion no debate needed
A codified constitution will not protect as much as many think either in regards to civil liberties or from authoritarianism. We have examples of this. And that's not counting any problematic constitutional provisions. I live in a country with a codified constitution. You don't understand how stupendously insufficient not to say annoying it is to end a dispute with a "well, it's/it's not in the constitution." In a country with an uncodified constitution every constitutional issue is re-negotiated and in a way re-established through judicial reasoning such as in Miller. Civil liberties are established through judicial reasoning, such as in Entick v Carrington. I have a small issue though with calling the supreme Court justices in the US activists. Every single justice everywhere is an activist to a degree. You know this. It's just we agree with some and disagree with others.
Whilst this is true, some protections are sorely needed, for example if Parliament decides not have an election one year and instead have power in perpetuity it would. Some procedural codification if not a Bill of Rights would be greatly received.
@Localhost83 So the US can, its barred by Statute not Constitution it needs an Act of Congress to remove the Federal Highways Restriction to Federal funding which currently refuses money to any State without a lower drinking age, doesn't need an amendment, guns would have been a better argument, but you could have a notwithstanding clause that means the government have to come our and say its unconstitutional and renew the Act every 2 years like in Canada. Allow amendments only by popular referendum like in Ireland. Your points apply as cleanly to any law, but Parliament should not be the sole authority on law, they answer to nobody and there is no mechanism to stop plainly unfair laws contrary to hundreds of years of Common Law tradition because its somewhat popular for a brief time, or worse still and far more common hidden and under reported. You have no recourse and no rights to defend.
The arguments of the opposition are mostly based on pure servility. Judicial review is a counterbalance against an executive that otherwise is all but free to legislate top down on the basis of simple 50% + 1 majority. The requirement of a supermajority in constitutional matters exists in recognition of the fact that democratic parliament exists to defend a pluralist plethora of voices able to be heard at the highest level of government, where no one side could be silenced by another just because of a simple majority. This is already exaggerated by the first-past-the-post system where a 25% of the British population could quite successfully elect a majority parliament which could then pass a constitutional change to then become the law over 100% of the population.
Dalam konstitusi negara yang sudah berhasil memberikan layanan keamanan masyarakat secara nyata maka pihak swasta atau individu yang ingin berintegrasi membentuk layanan virtual bidang hukum seperti konsultan hukum, advokat, law and firm partner,pengacara dll dll bisa menjadi komoditas publik yang memberikan keuntungan finansial dari sisi lini bisnis bidang supremasi hukum disamping pada lini bisnis yang lain seperti detektif, security team, jaringan anti teroris swasta dll dll
The United Kingdoms Common Law Constitution is so simple and must be kept so simple, that it never ever needs to be written & codified. This is because our Constitution is made of natural sovereign unalienable Common Law Constitutional principles, such as to keep the peace & unity; cause or suffer no intentional harm, loss or injury; no one should be above the law & all should be treated fairly & equally under the law; we the people are sovereign wo/men under God-the-Creators Sovereignty & should elect & loan our ConstitutionalMonarch-Head of State-Commander-in-Chief & Defender-of-the-Faith our sovereignty, to be our most senior Public Servant and if our Public Servants go rogue, .. then the natural unalienable & Common Law Constitutional principles within Article 61 of MagnaCharta1215 should be lawfully invoked, .. as they were in 2001 & still are to this day, ..
In theory, a written constitution should absolutely be foundational for any modern nation. However, the concern with this is the UK is that it would effectively give additional protections to the monarch and in turn, it's representatives within Parliament. Until such a point where the people quite rightly dispose of the monarchy and all its wrongs, we cannot have a constitutional convention that is empowered by the people.
What an idiot.There is no such thing as british constitution. THE CONSTITUTION IS ENGLISH. You are all being misinstructed. The USA CONSTITUTION CAME FROM ENGLAND.
I am afraid the orator for the UK is not addressing the issues directly for reasons known to him.
A fantastic head-to-head with two learned speakers, thank you!
Our Constitution cannot be changed by anyone but the people of the country. No one is above the law or below. The people must inner stand their Constitution before this could be considered.
Parliamentary sovereignty say's otherwise
Read the standing orders of parliament. Read them and understand them.
This is the kind of single upvote fusion than I can get behind.
you've made a powerfully pointless point.
Have to agree that a written constitution is the way to go, though I'd only go so far as to establish a set of rules for entrenchment and ratification via referendum rather than attempting to write a big fancy document. That way we can rely on a slightly modified political process to get stuff entrenched.
I think where Sir Robert's argument goes most awry is his assertions that Parliament has the right to modify the constitution by virtue of being an elected body. I contest that. While I accept that Parliament is, _lawfully speaking_ an elected body, but there's no escaping the fact that we almost never have governments elected with majority support of the electorate. Likewise with most MPs for that matter. For example, in 2015, the MP for Belfast South was elected on a mere 24.5% of the vote; and the government that was produced didn't do much better, being elected on a mere 36.8% of the vote. How anyone can suggest that this counts as a democratic mandate is beyond me, particularly when asserting that these governments then have a mandate to alter our constitution.
This is made even more blatant since the current "duly elected" party lost the London Mayor elections, and so changed how London Mayors are elected to First Past The Post, a voting system known for favouring two-party systems. _I wonder why they did that._ This wouldn't have been possible if the right to free, fair, and representative elections were enshrined and entrenched. We must have rules to govern those who govern us, or they'll run amok, we we continue to bear witness to.
The US federal constitution is a good example, it actually is rather lean, and enumerates what are the federal powers and what the federal government is strictly forbidden to do. It leaves ample flexibility for the states to do as they please for the most part as self governing, and each of the 50 states have their own constitution as well. Their Bill of Rights is especially good written down as the English equivalent has largely been ignored because it isn't codified.
@@Speegs23 The US Constitution is actually the example of what _NOT_ to do. The US Bill of Rights is not particularly well written or maintained. How can the First Amendment apply to States when the first word is "Congress"? The 14th Amendment changed things? Where? Where does it say that? Why hasn't the First Amendment's text been updated? The US Constitution is a fantastic example of the law not being what it means in the text. The UK Bill of Rights _is_ codified, see the Bill of Rights act 1688, from which the US Constitution borrowed liberally from. And the modern equivalent, the Human Rights Act, is not largely ignored at all. What are you talking about?
@lodgin I think it's the argument that it can be ignored or threats can be made that government will amend the act if not codified as a Constitutional Law superior to all other laws including acts of parliament. Look at what government said after London Bombings, 2009 brown government on hra on criminals and asylum seekers, and BoJos Bill of Rights bill
Letter of the law v spirit of the law. It boils down to that. We all see how lawyers and political activists can reinterpret definitions and play mischief with language. I'll stick with the spirit of the law.
English constitution is Gods law our birth right
Arnt the rights written in the HRA and Equality Act? Why can't people reinterpret definitions of those wirrten words? It would just be putting those 2 protected statutes to a higher level of protection
Noting! I repeat Nothing will change until we have True Leaders who cone from a place of LOVE!!
There is no British Constitution we have an English Constitution that goes back over a thousand years, and we share that with Wales. Scotland has its own constitution, hence, why its legal system is different to ours.
The English and Scots Constitution has been suppressed, subverted and replaced by a monstrosity they call the United Kingdom Constitution which is why the system is now so venal and why they are allowing all the illegal immigrants in which is to our detriment and expense.
I will let the House of Commons explain it to you in simple terms and remind you that Parliament is neither Sovereign nor is it Supreme:
". . . all Sovereign, Legislative, and Judicial Powers are the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated those their Original Powers to others, in Trust, for the Benefit of the Community, yet the Rights themselves are reserved by the People, and cannot be absolutely parted with by the People to those Persons who are employed to conduct the Business of the State.”
It continues, “That the Constitution of England is held by the King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the People, in Trust, for the Benefit of the People; and though these Trustees may regulate and improve the Constitution, yet they cannot alter or subvert it without committing Treason against the Nation . . . That Magna Charta, or THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, . . . the Constitution of England, which are in and by them respectively declared . . ."
Volume 49 of the Journals of the House of Commons (1783). Page 663
If you believe 'The Crown' and don't get the original 'Yes Minister' then you don't understand enough to think that the USAs codified constitution is an improvement on the English/British Constitution. Culture matters in these things.
To be fair, the lack of knowledge was confessed to, very charmingly, from the beginning.
Britain doesn't have a constitution it's England
Would rather hear from William kyte
53:09 yet another mistake by Buckland. The Human Rights Act 1998 is much more than a means for making arguments at a domestic level. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states:
Acts of public authorities.
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
I do not want political activist and unaccountable judges having the power to overule Parliament and the elected government, who are accountable to the people and can be ousted. The USA has politically appointed activist judges who are not directly accountable, cannot be ousted, and can overrule government and elected politicians in the US Congress.
In recent decades the Labour Party made changes to our Connstitutional arrangements that.are somewhat American, such as the Supreme Court, to replace the House of Lords and Law Lords as the court of final Appeal.
Absolute power is tyranny as stated by John sommer I think his name is🧐
Newsflash, we already have political judges. A constitution does not mean our supreme court would now operate in a different way. It would just have powers to overule decision which are unconstitutional. How is this a bad thing?
what i would have brought in is the fact that the American constitution is the number one reason why the extreme right and left have fanatics and that a written constitution is a religious figure in a codified law system. While the unwritten constitution of the UK creates less fanatical parties and members of society. We do not have people dying just so people can protect an amendment.
Balderdash, there are fanatics in the UK, you even have volatile nationalist separatist parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland and civil unrest and domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland until 1997 . What you don't have are a spirited national identity or pride anymore, and Brexit was the last vestige of national identity trying to prevent its inevitable extinction. I don't think a nation with a state church and monarch in the 21st century is in any position to virtue signal at a republican country that seceded from your empire because you didn't protect their rights or give them representation in parliament. You are literally British subjects, the Americans are citizens. And in matters of international affairs you are even subjects to the Americans.
We have a codified constitution in Canada but don't have those issues
28:36
A constitution should only come after political reform. Two elected chambers in a proportional manner, in a modern centralized building with the houses of parliament becoming an open free museum.
Why would you not want the law of the land codified since its clear mere tradition is not actually honored?
It's Gods law our birth right in England
3 months ago 1.73 million subscribers only 1.9k views - something is very wrong here.
1 year later not much has changed
Why don't you invite Graham Moore to speak on the English Constitution. Also William Keyte.
We need our right to free speech and bodily autonomy etc etc enshrined in law. Past 4y proved this beyond doubt.
UK it’s safe country with no wars , laws democracy human rights free education free health care free housing socialising , career opportunities , people are friendly & polite , buildings history art churches museums , universities, every culture party club , every music genre festival or concert , shopping clothing , start a business , soo many more benefits plus freedom of religion no debate needed
UK has never and will never be a country
A codified constitution will not protect as much as many think either in regards to civil liberties or from authoritarianism. We have examples of this. And that's not counting any problematic constitutional provisions.
I live in a country with a codified constitution. You don't understand how stupendously insufficient not to say annoying it is to end a dispute with a "well, it's/it's not in the constitution."
In a country with an uncodified constitution every constitutional issue is re-negotiated and in a way re-established through judicial reasoning such as in Miller. Civil liberties are established through judicial reasoning, such as in Entick v Carrington.
I have a small issue though with calling the supreme Court justices in the US activists. Every single justice everywhere is an activist to a degree. You know this. It's just we agree with some and disagree with others.
Whilst this is true, some protections are sorely needed, for example if Parliament decides not have an election one year and instead have power in perpetuity it would. Some procedural codification if not a Bill of Rights would be greatly received.
@Localhost83 The point is not is stop abuses of power and the removal of traditions, the aim is merely to make such difficult
@Localhost83 So the US can, its barred by Statute not Constitution it needs an Act of Congress to remove the Federal Highways Restriction to Federal funding which currently refuses money to any State without a lower drinking age, doesn't need an amendment, guns would have been a better argument, but you could have a notwithstanding clause that means the government have to come our and say its unconstitutional and renew the Act every 2 years like in Canada. Allow amendments only by popular referendum like in Ireland. Your points apply as cleanly to any law, but Parliament should not be the sole authority on law, they answer to nobody and there is no mechanism to stop plainly unfair laws contrary to hundreds of years of Common Law tradition because its somewhat popular for a brief time, or worse still and far more common hidden and under reported. You have no recourse and no rights to defend.
*cough* Covid lockdowns *cough*.
@@samluke8121can you expand? I'm learning about all those Bojo+covid stuff
Again, last 4y have proved the British people would be better served with the right to bear arms.
8:29
We do not consent we do not consent.we do not consent
The arguments of the opposition are mostly based on pure servility. Judicial review is a counterbalance against an executive that otherwise is all but free to legislate top down on the basis of simple 50% + 1 majority. The requirement of a supermajority in constitutional matters exists in recognition of the fact that democratic parliament exists to defend a pluralist plethora of voices able to be heard at the highest level of government, where no one side could be silenced by another just because of a simple majority. This is already exaggerated by the first-past-the-post system where a 25% of the British population could quite successfully elect a majority parliament which could then pass a constitutional change to then become the law over 100% of the population.
Dalam konstitusi negara yang sudah berhasil memberikan layanan keamanan masyarakat secara nyata maka pihak swasta atau individu yang ingin berintegrasi membentuk layanan virtual bidang hukum seperti konsultan hukum, advokat, law and firm partner,pengacara dll dll bisa menjadi komoditas publik yang memberikan keuntungan finansial dari sisi lini bisnis bidang supremasi hukum disamping pada lini bisnis yang lain seperti detektif, security team, jaringan anti teroris swasta dll dll
The United Kingdoms Common Law Constitution is so simple and must be kept so simple, that it never ever needs to be written & codified. This is because our Constitution is made of natural sovereign unalienable Common Law Constitutional principles, such as to keep the peace & unity; cause or suffer no intentional harm, loss or injury; no one should be above the law & all should be treated fairly & equally under the law; we the people are sovereign wo/men under God-the-Creators Sovereignty & should elect & loan our ConstitutionalMonarch-Head of State-Commander-in-Chief & Defender-of-the-Faith our sovereignty, to be our most senior Public Servant and if our Public Servants go rogue, .. then the natural unalienable & Common Law Constitutional principles within Article 61 of MagnaCharta1215 should be lawfully invoked, .. as they were in 2001 & still are to this day, ..
Written constitution is not the same thing as an unentrenched constitution. Look at Israel which has a written but unentrenched one
In theory, a written constitution should absolutely be foundational for any modern nation.
However, the concern with this is the UK is that it would effectively give additional protections to the monarch and in turn, it's representatives within Parliament.
Until such a point where the people quite rightly dispose of the monarchy and all its wrongs, we cannot have a constitutional convention that is empowered by the people.
They all answer to the people's law WHAT PARLIAMENT MAKES ISN'T LAW
There is no such thing as the british constitution. IT IS ENGLISH
It actually should be English and Welsh constitution from the legal perspective
It's the English Constitution, not British
You are altering constitutional law?
The higher law for governing those who govern is the Monarch!
Nope it's not they also agreed to the contract to respect our rights an laws
And government doesn't make LAW'S
🎉🎉🎉❤
Weak argument against a codified set of minimum standards. Compliance as Code in the age of AI when the algorithm ls rule our lives is fundamental.
Awful and incoherent arguments from the anti codified constitution side there, oh my goodness
Yes i believe the uk should
There is no such thing as the British Constitution. There is only The English Constitution.
That's....not how the Union works
Yes it is. England and Wales share the English bill of rights and Scotland has the claim of right
👼🏽💯
What an idiot.There is no such thing as british constitution. THE CONSTITUTION IS ENGLISH. You are all being misinstructed. The USA CONSTITUTION CAME FROM ENGLAND.
1776 in the uk is needed