« Andrew Lilico: How we should approach welfare reform | Main | Louise Bagshawe: Just another Thursday »





The EU Constitreaty should have been knocked out in under thirty Articles, few of them more than a paragraph in length.

Instead, it ended up as a mammoth bleeding heart Wishlist of the Inanities, and probably wouldn't fit into a steamer trunk once all the different-languaged versions are compiled.

So it's hard to see the Human Rights Industry and their paid help in the Judiciary letting a simple idea like this survive in any form shorter than Encyclopedia Britannica, nor are they likely to accept any document that specifically says that the judges are not lawmakers.

Besides, even Parliament's Turkeys know Christmas when they see it, so I think we can stamp this notion DOA.

Ash Faulkner

I understand what you're saying. The Japanese Constitution works a bit like that. For example, the constitution would say 'all adults are allowed to vote in democratic elections', but leave it to outside law to define just what an adult is, whether it's sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one or fifty-nine. That would cement the principle of democracy, without being doctrinaire.

It's an interesting idea, and one that I've actually had before. I'm not fiercely against it in principle, but I'd need a bit more convincing before I'm a signed up supporter.

David T Breaker

"The second great myth about the British constitution is that it is inflexible"

Just about everything I have ever read and been taught is the reverse of this, i.e. that the British Constitution is extremely flexible. Every law and regulation makes up our ever changing Constitution.

By not being "codified" into one single fast read document, or McConstitution, it has been able to adapt and adjust to change as needed, thereby creating a stable State that has avoided the civil war, unrest and extremes that have plagued our neighbours in Europe.

Those older parts that survive intact are not as you say "linger[ing] on long after their natural lifespan...preserved in formaldehyde" but surviving due to their strengths. Unlike say the US Constitution, which is codified and fairly inflexible with its out dated (and too often very deadly) perculiarities such as the right to bear arms.

Our strength has always been in our ability to adapt, don't throw that away.


The fault lies with the First Past the Post voting system supported by the Conservatives and their Labour allies.

This led to a party with a minority of the votes once again having control.


We often here Lib Dums and others talk about PR. We are told that a minority government would need to promise PR to get Lib Dum support. We have seen TB's government set up new parliaments in Cardiff & Edinburgh, whilst destroying the house of Lords.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of these issues, none should be in the power of the government of the day to change. It amounts to nothing more than changing the rules of the game as you go along. No something that befits the mother of parliaments.

All such issues need a mechanism for change, a set of rules that need more than just a parliamentary majority.

I believe we need a constitutional court, whose job is to decide when parliament oversteps its boundaries, and refers the relevant law to a "constitutional vote" which would require a super majority (2/3s, 3/4s ??) in order to pass.

dissertation writing jobs

it isn't a miths this is really like you wright!

essay written

Im agree with you. Let's start to do this together.

rewriting services

I think the hardest is to find those persons who will be responsible for this construction

online math help

new facts about british constitution for me. interesting reading

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker