A British constitution

We are a constitutional monchacy without a constitution.
We did have one, two in fact. The magna Carter and English bill of rights(which is what the US constitution was copied from).
But over the century's British law as grown into a monster that has invalidated most of it. The result is the resent chipping away at our freedoms and ambiguity surrounding things like freedom of speech in the UK.

So......if we are to build a new constitution , and I think we should, what should we put in it?

Now I have no doubt Americans will stick there foot into this thread so let's get some things out of the way:
1) THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT US CONSTITUTION OR REPLACING IT. IT IS ABOUT A UK CONSTITUTION.
2) WHAT THE UK CONSIDERS RIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT TO THE USA , DIFFRENT CULTURES DIFFERNT VALUES , GET OVER IT.
3)THE USA IS NOT THE ONLY OR FIRST COUNTRY TO HAVE A CONSTITUTION NOR IS IT THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

So my fellow Brits ...... what should be in it?

For me:
1) freedom of speech , press and religion. The exception threating violence against an individual and liable. Freedom of relgion stops at radical hate preaching, FGM, involuntary conversions and other dangrous/illegal practices.

2) right to a fair trial and due process.

3) freedom from torture.

4) right to clean water

5) right to basic education.

6) freedom from slavery and sexual explotation.

7) citizenship to anyone born to parents legally in the UK.

8) Right for all citizens over 18 not incarcerated to vote.

9) assumption of incocence until proven guilty.

10) Politicians to be charged with perjury if they lie. Exceptions for cases of national security, diplomatic and military matters.

11) right to privacy.

12) freedom from discrimination based on sex, race, disability or sexuality.

13) barring of the goverment to favour one business over another.

14 ) banning of politicians to hold any buissness positions that could comprise their loyalty to the public.

15) banning of the use of public money for bailouts.

16) banning duel citizens to hold any sort of public office or work in government.

17) right to private property. No civil fortfiture without due process and criminal conviction.

18) UK to renounce wars of aggresion and can only declare war if attacked or a ally is attacked.

19) UK citizen can not be extradited to a country if they will not receive due process or face torture.

20) UK is forbidden to hand any political sovereignty over to a another foreign entity unless a referendum is done and gets over 70% in favour.

21) Any UK citizen that joins a terrorist or other group involved in crimes against humanity shall be imprisoned for life.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr



yet you call for the killing of a birthright citizen of the uk do you not?

you have zero credibility with me as do all the other muppets calling for the same.

AND now you have the gall to submit for discussion a new british constitution?

you may be a troll, you may be integrity initiative extremis teamster or you may simply be a very angry individual.

do one.

originally posted by: fakedirt
a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr



yet you call for the killing of a birthright citizen of the uk do you not?

you have zero credibility with me as do all the other muppets calling for the same.

AND now you have the gall to submit for discussion a new british constitution?

you may be a troll, you may be integrity initiative extremis teamster or you may simply be a very angry individual.

do one.

Read my last comment on that thread where I realise what I said was wrong. But very angry (and stressed) individual would accurately describe me yes.

a reply to: fakedirt

gosh, i am sick of seeing posts like yours attacking the poster for stuff you may have read in other threads and not sticking to the topic.

on topic, i think most of that seems like something sensible for a constitution, we have most of it enshrined in various laws anyway, i feel free without a written constitution though, no laws bother me, maybe the digital communications act, but i don't say horrible things to people online so it won't ever affect me

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: fakedirt

gosh, i am sick of seeing posts like yours attacking the poster for stuff you may have read in other threads and not sticking to the topic.

on topic, i think most of that seems like something sensible for a constitution, we have most of it enshrined in various laws anyway, i feel free without a written constitution though, no laws bother me, maybe the digital communications act, but i don't say horrible things to people online so it won't ever affect me

My issue is over the hundreds of years our laws have become a little bit of a confusing mess.

A constitution does simplify things and helps keep our politicians in check.

Do you really expect a government to give you back rights you have allowed them strip from you? It won’t happen and any speculation is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Do you really expect a government to give you back rights you have allowed them strip from you? It won’t happen and any speculation is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

what actual rights do you have more than us? freedom of digital speech, it is free here face to face, so you can own an automatic firearm, we can still get shotguns and rifles, our cops don't shoot us dead like yours do, and i can cross the street anywhere i like if i deem it safe, won't go bankrupt if i get cancer either, i am glad i live here and not america.

Well done, that's a good start for a constitution. I might add where you say Right to clean water, right to clean water, food and shelter.

It was laws that made me vote leave during the Brexit referendum, i was getting sick of having our laws dictated by the EU

yeah seren's right on that one. We've got it pretty cushy here. I live in wales and here we dont pay for prescriptions for starters.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr
I like this thread. What is your definition of "right?" To me a right is something that someone else can't stop you from doing, it isn't something you have to have. For instance a right to education isn't someone forcing you to get an education and forcing someone else to pay for it since you don't have the money. A right to education would be that no one can stop you from getting one. What is your definition of "right?"

originally posted by: limestone
a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr
I like this thread. What is your definition of "right?" To me a right is something that someone else can't stop you from doing, it isn't something you have to have. For instance a right to education isn't someone forcing you to get an education and forcing someone else to pay for it since you don't have the money. A right to education would be that no one can stop you from getting one. What is your definition of "right?"

With that logic there are no rights as everything can be taken away in theory. Your right to breath can be taken away with a well placed bullet.

As for education. Education is directly tied to a nations economic prosperity. Everyone benefits from access to basic education.
Its no coincidence that in the mid to late 1800 when the West started adopting compulsory education that living standards, social mobility and economic growth shot up. It partly why the 3rd world is still a # hole.
Education should be accessible to anyone under 18. Without a education the poor will remain poor, innovation will slow and stagnate along with the economy. Everyone then suffers.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr
It's always been understood that Britain has an unwritten constitution, which determines what can be allowed - e.g. the monarch only acts "on advice of ministes", who are responsible to Parliament, and laws have to pass both Houses of Parliament.

The advantage of an unwritten constitution is that it can evolve to meet new conditions. Formally speaking, this one has hardly changed from the days when the kings were choosing ministers who tried to control Parliament, but it has been tweaked over time into a more democratic way of working.
Whereas a country that has committed itself to a written document is stuck with it, even when it works badly.
For example, eighteenth-century thinkers came up with the idea of excluding ministers from Parliament. Britain toyed with the principle but found it unworkable and inconvenient; the reverse principle of obliging them to be acceptable to voters and to the House of Commons appears to be more effective.
But the Americans wrote the exclusion principle into their constitution, which means they are stuck with it for evermore, even though it is directly responsible for the plague of budget stalemates and government shutdowns.

Let's not put mistaken ideas into a written law, so that we can't get rid of them later.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr

This is a wind up thread, right? The government won't give more power to the people, post-Brexit we'll have even less rights than ever before...

I think the term 'right' changes to suit the government. You have the right to water and shelter, as in you are entitled to it.
Whereas you have the right to education, meaning education is compulsory. Right chages meaning depending on the context, as citizens are not clever enough to decide what is right for themselves.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr

'Read my last comment on that thread where I realise what I said was wrong. But very angry (and stressed) individual would accurately describe me yes.'


try and not let it get you into trouble witth the rozzers. all data is neternal.

f.

You know, what annoys me about laws in this country, is the way things get taken too far.

Ok guns are illegal, and knife crime is rising, so now you can get arrested for having a screwdriver in your car glove compartment. How about self defense, well pepper spray and tasers are illegal because if you can defend yourself with them, then you can also mug someone with them.

Remember that farmer a few years ago, that shot a burglar, when two broke into his farmhouse and he was sent down. I guess he was supposed to let them rob and maybe kill him instead of breaking the law

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr
It's always been understood that Britain has an unwritten constitution, which determines what can be allowed - e.g. the monarch only acts "on advice of ministes", who are responsible to Parliament, and laws have to pass both Houses of Parliament.

The advantage of an unwritten constitution is that it can evolve to meet new conditions. Formally speaking, this one has hardly changed from the days when the kings were choosing ministers who tried to control Parliament, but it has been tweaked over time into a more democratic way of working.
Whereas a country that has committed itself to a written document is stuck with it, even when it works badly.
For example, eighteenth-century thinkers came up with the idea of excluding ministers from Parliament. Britain toyed with the principle but found it unworkable and inconvenient; the reverse principle of obliging them to be acceptable to voters and to the House of Commons appears to be more effective.
But the Americans wrote the exclusion principle into their constitution, which means they are stuck with it for evermore, even though it is directly responsible for the plague of budget stalemates and government shutdowns.

Let's not put mistaken ideas into a written law, so that we can't get rid of them later.

An unwritten constitution is basically no more than series of generally accepted customs. That seems a particularly poor way of operating a modern democracy.

Written constitutional generally have a method of changing (the whole US bill of rights for example). It's just made deliberately difficult so not to necessarily manipulated by the government of the day.

From the OP I think the discussion is more around the Hunan Rights part of a constitution rather than the mechanics of government part.

originally posted by: speedie
You know, what annoys me about laws in this country, is the way things get taken too far.

Ok guns are illegal, and knife crime is rising, so now you can get arrested for having a screwdriver in your car glove compartment. How about self defense, well pepper spray and tasers are illegal because if you can defend yourself with them, then you can also mug someone with them.

Remember that farmer a few years ago, that shot a burglar, when two broke into his farmhouse and he was sent down. I guess he was supposed to let them rob and maybe kill him instead of breaking the law

Martin shot them in the back as they attempted to flee using an unlicensed shotgun.

Maybe not the best example.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr
You misunderstood the word "can't," in my sentence, my friend. When I said a "right" is something that someone "can't" stop you from doing, I didn't mean that literally. I didn't mean it in the sense of "I don't have wings so I "can't" fly." I meant it in the sense of "you can't do that because it is against the law." See the difference?

What is your definition of "right?"

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ok maybe not a perfect example, but my point being. In this country , you have to be very careful when it comes to self defense or you could yourself end up in hot water.