Definitely more of these. Educating the British Publish (and the world) about the complexities of local politics is important and I am super glad that someone out there is able to put it in an easy to understand format. Thank you TLDR
lol this person is talking utter bull, this is so hard for joe public to understand, he is talking jibberish, we have an english constitution, we have had it since 1688/9 and we will always have it, it is for all time, oh and the supreme court is illegal under english law, the illegal supreme court was something that tony blair brought in to control the english
@@snyparaustralis540 North Island and South Island. Although if you go back far enough the South Island was called Middle Island, and Stewart Island was the South Island.
kdhlkjhdlk fair enough... “Keep It Simple, Stupid” in action! Isabella Egan we Aussies aren’t much better... Western Australian, South Australia, the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory....
@@snyparaustralis540 As well as North Island and South Island, they are also officially called Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waipounamu. Both pairs of names are correct and official, although North and South are in more common use.
@@jimmy2k4o That's because... We don't actually listen to our teachers. Had they played this video in your class, something deep from within would reject it.
@@Highvibethings yeah, we almost rebel against our teachers. It’s sad that we get school at an age where we don’t appreciate it. It’s not until we’re older we discover that we like learning about stuff and when our full time job was to learn about different subjects all day, we didn’t appreciate it. Also I think our brains are more equipped to learn once we’re a bit older. In the sense it comes more naturally and it’s enjoyable. Learning about Henry VIII as age 13 was boring and hard, but leaning about him at 28 it’s interesting and enjoyable……and easy. Afterall it’s easy to learn things you find interesting, infact it’s almost impossible to not learn stuff when you’re interested.
Excellent video - I knew some of this, but not all and you present it very succinctly. One slight correction I would offer is that a written constitution is no barrier to modernisation in countries which offer easy access to public plebiscites or referendums. In ireland we are shortly to have the 42nd referendum vote (since independence) on changing our written Constitution. I'm 60 years old and I estimate that I have voted in at least 30 referendums since 1983.
Dermot Gildea Amending a written constitution through referenda offers great clarity and precision. Amending an uncodified constitution . . . doesn’t, as every other TLDR video seems to prove. If the question you’re voting on is “Shall Article 5, Section 3, Paragraph 2, Line J be amended to read ‘Blah blah blah blah blah,’” the only impediment to people understanding what they’re voting on is the density and inaccessibility of the legal language. Even the worst examples of this are crystal clear compared with the ambiguities inherent in asking a yes-or-no question about a big and complex issue.
@@aperson22222 Good point. It can be daunting to voters when presented with the sort of legalese paragraph you mentioned, but in Ireland we generally have a lengthy debate about what the change means before the vote. Also, when the change is significant (e.g. the 2018 Abortion referendum), the Govt is usually obliged to publish indicative legislation or commit publicly to the the key parameters of laws they will propose to enact if the Constitution is amended. One other point worth mentioning - one of the main powers of our President is that he/she can refer any legislation passed by the Dáil (Parliament) to the Supreme Court for a judgement on its constitutionality.
Dermot Gildea Yes, things like that certainly make the amendment process more user-friendly. Everything but the president’s sending new laws to the court (which is interesting; saves the court from having to wait for a lawsuit to wind its way through the appeals process) sound a lot like uncodified conventions to me. Even the most explicitly written constitution will have its share of those, I suppose.
yep. This is a debatable point. The Irish rule allows the passage of an amendment without a super majority. So unlike in the USA the irish Parliament can pass a change in the same way as an ordinary statute, the voters can refuse to approve it in the subsequent referendum. Amending the constitutional document is simple and quick. So long as there is a majority to do so among the voters.
Keith Cross Slight correction Keith - the Irish parliament cannot enact new legislation until the Constitutional Amendment has been passed - and yes, a simple majority is sufficient for that. But voters usually want some indication of the intended legislation so Govts usually publish an outline or commit to specific parameters. E.g when Divorce was finally legalised in 1995 it was only approved by 50.28% so just barely passed. That Constitutional Amendment hard wired a 5 year waiting period for divorce into the Constitution - hence the legislation created to enact Divorce had to include the 5 year period. We have another referendum on Divorce on May 24th in which the proposed changes are - no fixed waiting period - instead the period to be set by legislation & full recognition of foreign divorces. The Govt has published an outline bill proposing to enact 2 year waiting period if the amendment is passed. So if passed, the Constitution will now allow future Govts to propose even more liberal time periods in revised legislation.
Would love to see a video on devolution for each country explaining the difference between them. And if there is any devolution in England at all. Keep up the good work, your videos are great!
We have local government Councillors. Now the Tories have brought in regional mayors with powers to initiate projects as of 2017. @hublanderuk that would make no sense as the English Parliament would just be our MPs without Scotland, Wales, NI so essentially the same decision makers without any voice for the other countries on decisions which affect them. A bit like Brexit and losing our voice as part of the EU ie. we lose our elected MEPs and Ministers roles in the Commission if we leave...
I'm an immigrant, and this was useful for me as someone who didn't learn British civics in school. I'd love further explanations of the mechanics of British government to get me up to speed.
@@DavidChipman you are right. The Constitution of Canada includes the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982. The British North America Act, 1867, codified many constitutional rules for Canada, but major changes to the Constitution could only be made by the United Kingdom Parliament. In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of Canada's Constitution along with a set of procedures allowing the Constitution to be amended in Canada. So TLDR is simply wrong. Canada does have a codified constitution
There is one convention. Although the Queen has executive power as the head of state, it can be exercised solely on advice by Ministers of the Crown ie the cabinet and prime minister
Canada has a constitution and it is in great part written. Especially it has a Charter of Rights. Because of Quebec and the Civil law influence saying Canada is is just a follow up of UK is over simplifying and Brit centrist... Also consider the influence of our neighbours to the South with a constitution and politics that also influence us greatly!
@@ProfessorJohnB There are dozens of conventions of varying degree in Canada. You are correct in that one of the key ones is that the Executive acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Many of our conventions are similar to those of the United Kingdom (the entire position of Prime Minister, for example, is through convention), while others have deviated from the UK over the last 150 years (for example, because Brexit was "the" key platform piece of the Tories, if May's deal had been defeated by the House in Canada it would have almost certainly triggered an election, because in Canada it would have been considered a confidence motion).
@@HawkPlatinum eh? what stereotype is that playing off of? Is it a joke about not allowing guns? Cause, if you think about it, not having guns would actually force us to be very well versed in the mechanics of a sling shot. I just realized as well that the English are famous for longbows, a very sling shot like weapon.
I like our uncodified constitution. Codified constitutions risk becoming outdated and not adapting quickly enough to new needs. The only major improvement I could suggest for the video (besides just a couple of spelling errors) would be to flesh out the role of the monarchy, particularly as sovereignty is vested in the Queen-in-Parliament (meaning both institutions need to agree for a law to pass).
Jack Tanton Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually use any of the powers she has, as our head of state she is technically as powerful as any Parliamentary President.
I'm all for videos like these! I'd hate to see this channel fade away once brexit is over (even if that's a long ways away). Please, don't be afraid to branch out more!
As an American Lawyer, I am thankful for our Common Law heritage. The Ability for judges to decide cases even if there isnt a law on the official books is an invaluable tool in making the rule of law work.
The thing that's preventing someone from ignoring the UK constitution is really the same thing that's preventing someone from ignoring any written constitution. At the end of the day, a written constitution is just a piece of paper, and if nobody cares about it, it won't have any influence. It's the fact that people agree that the constitution is important and needs to be upheld, that makes it importand and makes sure that it's upheld.
Untrue, because you cannot be forced to defend yourself in a court of law over violating an unwritten constitution. To suggest that they have the same impact when one has legal weight and one doesn't is absurd. Yes, *theoretically* we could all collectively decide to ignore a written constitution, but it's much less likely because of the legal framework that is in place to enforce it. Therefore, it isn't the same thing that is preventing someone from ignoring a written constitution as an unwritten one.
Good video, but 1:29, you misspelled Israel. As an American, I'm keenly aware of the benefits, and drawbacks, of having a written, codified constitution. Well, really, it's the same feature: constitutional law is incredibly difficult to change, for good or ill.
That actually depends somewhat on the process for amendments. Here in Ireland, we've had eight changes to the constitution in ten years and we're about to have a referendum on another one. Of course, our process for amendments is much simpler than the US (the parliament must approve the proposal and then there's a referendum).
@@kierandouble6414 Absolutely. In the USA, the bar is very, one might argue, impossibly high, at least in the current political climate. Though I also live in California, so I do get some of the 'alter constitution by referrendum', and let me tell you, that isn't always so good either.
actually Canada does have a Constitution which also includes a charter of rights it was first signed by the queen, the governor general at the time and the prime minister at the time back in 1984
@@nautilusshell7837 as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@marth8000 I think if you look at what's happened over the last couple of hundred years, there have been few, if any, examples of the sovereign acting without the approval of the government. It seems to be a convention. BTW, what's a que? A line of people? Super Kami wrote: SuperKami 14 minutes ago @Nautilus Shell as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@nautilusshell7837 Coup* (A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (/pʊtʃ/), a golpe, or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.) but anyway w/e. The Queen hasn't had to act in the interest of the realm or for her own well being against the government because she's had no need to do so, The government and the monarch equally respect one another. so neither have most monarchs in a long time had to step into politics, but that doesn't mean that that can't change. but yeah i can understand people seeing that as setting a precedent, but again it's all hypothetical's and what-if's.
@@marth8000 So, you're suggesting that the queen will be involved in an illegal etc seizure of power. Somehow, I don't think so. The Queen is more likely to do a knickerless can-can along Piccadilly than get involved in anything of the sort.
Article 50 was passed by parliament and is statute law. may's extension are therefore illegal. Support the English Democrats case in the High Court to get the extensions overturned. We left the EU on the 29th March at 11 pm.
Wow. Youre really looking forward to burning the uk down arent you? Btw, may only asked for the extensions because the elected parliamentarians voted to make her do it! Parliamentary votes are illegal in the uk!??!
Just a friendly note about our written constitution: Canada Constitution act, 1982 section 52(1): The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
pixlplague You and TLDR are both partially right. Most political scientists seem to be of the opinion that Canada has a partially codified constitution with large parts still uncodified and based on the UK constitution like case law, the monarchy, the role of the prime minister etc. The provinces are a bit more clear in that none of them but one have codified constitutions.
Xerxes Au Considering that most issues between Quebec and Canada have been regarding the repatriation of the constitution of 1982 and the consequences of that constitution (mostly charter of rights and freedom) on provincial and linguistic rights: saying Canada is like the UK is very misleading. In term of law and constitution: Canada lives with the exemple of it’s US neighbour (charter of rights and freedom follows on the example of the bills of rights). Also consider that each provinces have their own parlement and in the case of Quebec use civil law (French tradition) instead of just common law. So as impressed I am with TLDR News: putting Canada among the 5 countries with large non codified constitution is very confusing...
@@ericmarchand1436 Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Farage is an idiot on these things… He even states to people "vote for me and if I win I'll tell you what I'll do." Utter madness!!Then again this is BREXIT.
@@Darkwintre The problem is that leaving "properly" doesn't seem to be possible without raising the Irish border or pushing Northern Ireland out of the UK. This is why Parliament is a mess. What people actually voted for is impossible so they are trying to figure out what they can give us that looks a bit like Brexit but that is actually achievable. And each party wants to do it in a way that lays blame at the other parties.
@@lellyparker now imagine if May hadn't interfered how would Davies have handled this? I doubt it would be the problem they're making it, but deliberately avoiding getting on with it as May's Treaty doesn't resolve this doesn't help!
As an A Level Politics teacher actually covering the constitution this is really good, I’m going to use it for my students in the next lesson. Thanks for posting.
Ah, England does love its reverse legal fictions. Instead of creating or interpreting a law that contradicts reality, you interpret reality as if a law existed. Surely, despite the law saying otherwise, what it meant to say is that the King cannot really disband parliament without the Prime Minister's approval.
I love all of TLDRs content, particularly Brexit related videos. Moreover, videos such as this that explain political systems in the Uk and America are immensely useful to myself as I’m studying Politics and Government, as well as that they’re really interesting. In short just keep doing what you’re doing and please do produce more videos explaining systems of government.
When I was serving in the German military, we all received a small booklet with our constitution so we all knew what we are defending and what restricts our use of military power. What do British soldiers get? A shelf full of books? Ticket to the library?
The UK also doesn't have a real press freedom. And you could see the consquences of this when authorities moved against the Guardian during the Snowden leaks... But on the other hand the UK is the country with the most surveillance. You didn't mention other treaties that prevent the UK going full crazy, like the European Convention on Human Rights and other EU law.
That, "the UK is the country with the most surveillance" is outdated. We've been overtaken by China (massively) and other countries use much more sophisticated surveillance cameras than we do. We are now behind UAE, Singapore, Japan and The US. OK so being 6th isn't great but you should at least get our facts right.
Politicians have acknowledged freedom of the press, and it has been written into the constitution in the UK. This is why the UK came in 5th place in the world for freedom, however the UK still stands at 40th position for human rights.
So to bring this back to the facets of parliamentary procedure we've witnessed recently :- A) The Speaker ruling about bringing May's deal back to parliament that third time mentioned a ruling in a book. Is that a Work of Authority or is that just a list of conventions? B) The Speaker casting his tie breaker vote as a no. From his wording that definitely sounded like convention speaking. Correct?
@B: It's only convention for the speaker not to vote in the first place. Legally he is a "primus inter pares" (first among equals), which means he is presiding over the sessions, but is otherwise a full member. He has a vote and could use it in any and all divisions. This, in fact, isn't entirely uncontroversial as it robs the constituency of the speaker of its voice in a system that pulled the slider between nationwide majority and local representation all the way to the latter...
EU law was known to supersede national law even before the UK joined the EU in 1973. This was settled in the case of Costa v ENEL (The Italian national electric company) in 1964.
also it is not common Law as understood in England but arises from the effect of statute. It forms part of the constitution by virtue of the European communities act 1973. unless or until the UK leaves the EU.
@@jalbo9975 It existed in a different name (The European economic communities or EEC), but the main structure of EU law was already set and case laws from that time are still a part of EU law. The EU gained more authority over the years in comparison to the EEC with Maastricht being an important milestone.
Great video .... informative & enlightening..... a well explained insight into the British Constitution & associated conventions, applications & affiliated governances including common & statue law ..... if possible could you please do an exploratory video on the ‘transference of laws, legislative power & authority’ to the UK after Brexit ...... as it stands at this moment in time neither the European Union nor Britain have began formal talks on which laws as to be recognised by either party..... or how long current laws / powers & treaties will remain in place ..... thank you TLDR News ....
Still wrangling over "serious votes, and "deadlines", etc. Both sides have barely scratched the surface in re the practical effects of BREXIT on the UK and the EU. Lots of palaver but very little concrete action since the vote in 2016.
Gary L ...... As the UK & European Union haven’t formally separated the chief negotiator(for the EU) & the President of the EU have openly stated and placed anomaly’s into the initial separation treaty that seem to restrain the UK’s ability to manoeuvre, this includes the separation of EU law from UK law....... therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the next phase of talks for leaving the EU will include this subject ....... so the question remains....How long will current EU laws, powers & treaties remain in place AFTER the UK exits the EU ..... & …… how will the UK transfer the legal powers, frameworks & constitutions into UK law when parliament is already fragmented .....the ratifying of legislation for a smooth seamless legal transition looks to be an impossibility at this moment in time .....
@@mikeyb4610 The citizens of the UK voted democratically in 2016 but their elected politicians have not, as yet, given them what they deserved=BREXIT. On the contrary, the citizens of the USA democratically voted in the current criminal junta and got just what it deserved. Go figure???
I'd love more of these! Maybe a video comparing common law with Roman law? Or maybe showing how uncodified constitutions work in Canada and New Zealand.
Pretty sure NZ has a law on the books that is used to "entrench" certain other laws, making them much harder to repeal. One such law is called something along the lines of 'the Constitution act' or some such and lays out a bunch of other specific laws and documents as making up New Zealand's Constitution... Note that the law used to entrench other laws is not itself entrenched, but getting rid of it, then the entrenched law you want to be rid of is probably harder in practice than just getting rid of the entrenched law directly... Something like that, last I checked anyway. It's a lot more formal and codified than the video implies, though it is not a single fixed and unchangeable document.
*6 months later in the Glorious Republic of New Britannica's reeducation camp no 518: "To think all this could've been prevented if TLDR had been more knowledgeable about biology."
Imagine thinking it's bad to have impartial judges appointed by elected officials instead of directly electing judges who bend to whatever flavor of populist thought is trending.
Well if they are appointed directly by elected officials than they can be seen as political spoils and used to entrench a party's ideology in the legal system. I would know that is what has started to become the principle motivation of the Republican Party here in the U.S. Now though, although I would like for the UK to have some form of additional protection for constitutional acts and restrictions on the passage of new ones (say only allowing repeal or new acts in cases where their repeal was called for in the winning parties manifesto) their current system allows for highly indirectly appointed judges to rules on the interpretation of constitutional statute, and for Parliament to change it later if they felt that the judges got it wrong.)
You seemed to have missed out the position of the monarch in all of this. Although the Queen's position may seem to be mainly ceremonial, she does have important powers that add to the checks and balances preventing unjust and oppressive government. I believe she has a definite role in the UK's 'constitution'.
Israel historically lacks a constitution as its law grew out of British Mandate law. So it also lacks a written constitution due to once being governed by the UK.
Well technically you have the Royal head of state that can just dissolve any tyrannical Government and they are head of the armed forces so can even take back control by force theoretically for the good of the realm, I'd say that safeguards things.
Yeah but that likely won't happen, as a tyrannical Government will likely have the backing of the military at that point, and as such the military will probably answer to them regardless of what the monarchy wants. As much as it's nice to think that the Queen would save us from a tyrannical Government she likely wouldn't, the monarchy is just a figure-head that costs a fortune in tax.
I think you may have missed a trick on Canada (we sorta rubbed off a few documents in that nation) but this was great. All you have to do it get a catchy tune with an old jazz singer and you can make this a schoolhouse rock.
I would imagine that, if all else fails, and someone tries to screw *everything* up because it isn't technically against the law, there's always the Queen who can step in and say "Oy, stop that." I can't imagine she *would* except in extreme situations where the bad actor is obviously acting against the best interest of the people.
I think the army is the bigger player against such issues. Actually anyone that wants to make REAL coups, as in, really effective ones, has to win the army to their side. Then they can throw a coup. Otherwise theyd just be attacked themselves.
Maybe. The last time a British monarch refused to assent to an act of parliament was 1708. It's likely there'd be renewed interest in republicanism in the UK if a monarch was seen to be frustrating the will an elected parliament.
@@superfluidity There was a lot of speculation that would happen after the UK Parliament just passed a private members bill forbidding a "no deal Brexit." Theresa May and the government opposed the bill, but were outvoted. She could have advised the Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent to kill the bill. But did not. Since such advice violates constitutional convention, Her Majesty would quite rightly refuse it and give the bill Royal Assent anyway.
@@kevinlove4356 Australia 1975 saw the dismissal of the Federal Cabinet as the Queens Governor refused to accept the advice of the Labour PM. Legal but constitutional? You will have to ask aussies what they think about that.
The problem with saying "Checks and Balances" is that UK simply doesn't have that many. It is more uncomfortable to call it luck, but that and vigilant individuals who have safeguarded the UK. Had an elected government made a concerted effort of Tyranny it would have been able to have done so legally. In some cases, it likely would have been easier for a tyrant to rise in the UK's system than the systems of many of the nations that fell to fascism before the second world war. Rarely is a solidified constitution a detriment to a nation, usually the worst constitutions are those that can be changed at a moments notice making them tools of the majority party or those Documents which are unofficial to begin with.
Since Stonehenge times it has been proven time after time British politics can't function without the help of their neighbours. Without them the UK would have been a dictatorship for centuries.
A written constitution is only a piece of paper. People with moral courage are what stop tyrannies. There are arguments for and against having one. It is a complex matter and admits of no simple answer. Extreme political instability causes them to break down.
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Please do more of these! They're really informative and digestible. Having done law at A level I know I myself am eager to learn more about how my country actually functions politically
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
What a mess. Just have a clear written constitution, and regularly update it with some super-majority system. The Netherlands has a constitution that's been largely the same since 1814, but has seen lots of small updates, the last one in 2017.
How about a video (or two) on how laws are proposed and passed in the EU? Perhaps you can resolve claims such as "THE elected European Parliament has no power" or "The unelected European Commission has all the power".
Be careful of the assumption that an unelected judiciary making important constitutional decisions is somehow a negative thing given that in many countries where marginalized voices struggle to be heard in Parliament, the unelected judiciary whose independence is guarded from political interference (the very model purported by British Colonial Officials during the decolonisation period) is there only place of representation.
@@vallraffs Actually no. Not sure if you appreciate constitutional law where constitutional supremacy replaces parliamentary sovereignty, but the ability of parliament to impact the decisions of the judiciary strike against the notion of the rule of law and is therefore anti-democratic. Not every action a democratically elected political body does is actually democratic. To make such an assertion is a bit reductionist.
@@GlenDivo "Anti-democratic"? Not really. Only in a world where the definition of "democracy" counts rule of law over and seperate from the majoritarian principle of power resting with the people and it's representatives would that be the case. What that describes is just strict legalism, not democracy. An unelected judiciary wielding power from law, independent of any mandate from the people, is antithetical to popular sovereignty and thus anti-democratic.
Factortame is not a Common Law decision. Magna Carta is a statute as to the two Articles still relevant. The most important convention is that the King will not refuse consent to a Bill which has pased both HoC and HoL becoming an Act.
More of this. Like, *more*. The Anglophile in me is awestruck by both all this new neatly gathered information and the great work you guys are doing! Kudos and here's to many more videos like this!
One clarifying detail: Canada has a constitution (in fact two, one from 1867 and one from 1982). However these constitutions are kind of incomplete. It just kind of says "anything not explicitly covered by these laws should be dealt with through British common law and conventions." So more or less, British Common Law (at least pre-1982) is constitutional law in Canada. But I think it would be untrue to say Canada has no constitution. It might be more accurate to say Canada doesn't have a watertight or absolute constitution.
I would love more videos like this. I wish they would teach law in schools, it makes no sense that you are expected to live in a society, where you are expected to be so ignorant of the law, that you must legally be provided with a lawyer if you are in trouble because you arent expected to know what the law is.
I've always said that the UK needs a codified Constitution which defines the powers of the Monarch, the Legaslative, Judicial and Executive branches of government. Because it's absurd that a citizen of the UK must go through myriads of subjective interpretations of what the UK constitution is, when it plays a key role in their lives.
I’m a Canadian. And we technically do have a constitution but we called it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was signed in 1982 under the Constitution Act. So we at least know our rights.
Actually - a critique on the Benn Act fiasco from a constitutional point of view with aid from a seasoned constitution expert would be highly interesting and constructive.
Pretty sure it's officially called something like "The Commonwealth of Nations" these days (it includes a couple that were never part of the Empire, among other things). Of course, in other contexts it's been simply "The Commonwealth" in the same way it was "The Empire" the whole time.
IMHO, the fact that nothing can actually stop a tyrannical government from destroying the UK, yet that never happened (and I hope will never happen), is the true beauty of British politics.
When talking to American exchange students, I study politics at university, and even my American Girlfriend the only answer I can give to "what's stopping a dictatorship if you don't have a constitutional" the only real answer I've ever really been able to give is just "It's not conventional for us to go down that root".
Anyone else think it fitting that, whilst talking about an uncodified/nonexistant constitution being unable to stop the government from turning tyrannical, he said "touch wood" and placed up a picture of a tall grass that doesn't even grow in Britain?
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxfEiMksZQs/mqdefault.jpg)
Definitely more of these. Educating the British Publish (and the world) about the complexities of local politics is important and I am super glad that someone out there is able to put it in an easy to understand format. Thank you TLDR
James Hyde *Public
Kerberos pubelisch
@@jurgenforster8314 pubelike
Best not to put all your eggs in one basket anyway.
lol this person is talking utter bull, this is so hard for joe public to understand, he is talking jibberish, we have an english constitution, we have had it since 1688/9 and we will always have it, it is for all time, oh and the supreme court is illegal under english law, the illegal supreme court was something that tony blair brought in to control the english
To be fair, NZ didn't have official names for it's islands until about 10 years ago. We tend to just forget to get around to things...
Simon Buchan so what are the official island names?
@@snyparaustralis540 North Island and South Island. Although if you go back far enough the South Island was called Middle Island, and Stewart Island was the South Island.
@@kdhlkjhdlk aren't we original?
kdhlkjhdlk fair enough... “Keep It Simple, Stupid” in action!
Isabella Egan we Aussies aren’t much better... Western Australian, South Australia, the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory....
@@snyparaustralis540
As well as North Island and South Island, they are also officially called Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waipounamu. Both pairs of names are correct and official, although North and South are in more common use.
sure. more of these. I am sure you will cover Brexit when something new happens
Boris will be gone by July , then we leave
Nothing will happen till a couple of years pass.
@@auntiemandy5638 LMAO I didn't see the date and thought you meant THIS July, 2021
@@3jacen na he went last year during his first hospital visit for covid , he had a 3am visit from white hats , only look a likes and holograms since
@@auntiemandy5638 But most politicians are empty vessels anyways, he is certainly more mentally present than brain dead Joe Biden
I wish you’d give former leaders their haircuts like you do for May, Corbyn, and Farage.
You explained this topic a lot more clearly then my politics teacher
“If you can’t explain something to a child you don’t understand it yourself” Albert Einstein
Maybe look for a new teacher lol
@@jimmy2k4o That's because... We don't actually listen to our teachers. Had they played this video in your class, something deep from within would reject it.
@@Highvibethings yeah, we almost rebel against our teachers.
It’s sad that we get school at an age where we don’t appreciate it. It’s not until we’re older we discover that we like learning about stuff and when our full time job was to learn about different subjects all day, we didn’t appreciate it.
Also I think our brains are more equipped to learn once we’re a bit older. In the sense it comes more naturally and it’s enjoyable.
Learning about Henry VIII as age 13 was boring and hard, but leaning about him at 28 it’s interesting and enjoyable……and easy.
Afterall it’s easy to learn things you find interesting, infact it’s almost impossible to not learn stuff when you’re interested.
Excellent video - I knew some of this, but not all and you present it very succinctly. One slight correction I would offer is that a written constitution is no barrier to modernisation in countries which offer easy access to public plebiscites or referendums. In ireland we are shortly to have the 42nd referendum vote (since independence) on changing our written Constitution. I'm 60 years old and I estimate that I have voted in at least 30 referendums since 1983.
Dermot Gildea Amending a written constitution through referenda offers great clarity and precision. Amending an uncodified constitution . . . doesn’t, as every other TLDR video seems to prove. If the question you’re voting on is “Shall Article 5, Section 3, Paragraph 2, Line J be amended to read ‘Blah blah blah blah blah,’” the only impediment to people understanding what they’re voting on is the density and inaccessibility of the legal language. Even the worst examples of this are crystal clear compared with the ambiguities inherent in asking a yes-or-no question about a big and complex issue.
@@aperson22222 Good point. It can be daunting to voters when presented with the sort of legalese paragraph you mentioned, but in Ireland we generally have a lengthy debate about what the change means before the vote. Also, when the change is significant (e.g. the 2018 Abortion referendum), the Govt is usually obliged to publish indicative legislation or commit publicly to the the key parameters of laws they will propose to enact if the Constitution is amended. One other point worth mentioning - one of the main powers of our President is that he/she can refer any legislation passed by the Dáil (Parliament) to the Supreme Court for a judgement on its constitutionality.
Dermot Gildea Yes, things like that certainly make the amendment process more user-friendly. Everything but the president’s sending new laws to the court (which is interesting; saves the court from having to wait for a lawsuit to wind its way through the appeals process) sound a lot like uncodified conventions to me. Even the most explicitly written constitution will have its share of those, I suppose.
yep. This is a debatable point. The Irish rule allows the passage of an amendment without a super majority. So unlike in the USA the irish Parliament can pass a change in the same way as an ordinary statute, the voters can refuse to approve it in the subsequent referendum. Amending the constitutional document is simple and quick. So long as there is a majority to do so among the voters.
Keith Cross Slight correction Keith - the Irish parliament cannot enact new legislation until the Constitutional Amendment has been passed - and yes, a simple majority is sufficient for that. But voters usually want some indication of the intended legislation so Govts usually publish an outline or commit to specific parameters. E.g when Divorce was finally legalised in 1995 it was only approved by 50.28% so just barely passed. That Constitutional Amendment hard wired a 5 year waiting period for divorce into the Constitution - hence the legislation created to enact Divorce had to include the 5 year period. We have another referendum on Divorce on May 24th in which the proposed changes are - no fixed waiting period - instead the period to be set by legislation & full recognition of foreign divorces. The Govt has published an outline bill proposing to enact 2 year waiting period if the amendment is passed. So if passed, the Constitution will now allow future Govts to propose even more liberal time periods in revised legislation.
Would love to see a video on devolution for each country explaining the difference between them. And if there is any devolution in England at all. Keep up the good work, your videos are great!
If and when will we get an English Parliament since this would solve the West Lothian Question
We have local government Councillors. Now the Tories have brought in regional mayors with powers to initiate projects as of 2017. @hublanderuk that would make no sense as the English Parliament would just be our MPs without Scotland, Wales, NI so essentially the same decision makers without any voice for the other countries on decisions which affect them. A bit like Brexit and losing our voice as part of the EU ie. we lose our elected MEPs and Ministers roles in the Commission if we leave...
I'm an immigrant, and this was useful for me as someone who didn't learn British civics in school. I'd love further explanations of the mechanics of British government to get me up to speed.
Non Immigrant here, what is British Civics, I never had such teaching at school.
1:32 the reason for Israel's uncodified constitution is the same as for NZ and Canada's.
It's really stupid reason. India was also a former colony of the UK but we have a codified constitution.
shame it doesn't mean much anyway!
You've shown some interesting topics at the beginning.
I hope we get to see more of them get their own videos, I think they'd be great.
I seem to recall that the Canadian constitution is roughly half written, half uncodified.
I thought most of it was written. Was just going to comment that Canada has had a Constitution since at least 1982.
@@DavidChipman you are right. The Constitution of Canada includes the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982. The British North America Act, 1867, codified many constitutional rules for Canada, but major changes to the Constitution could only be made by the United Kingdom Parliament. In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of Canada's Constitution along with a set of procedures allowing the Constitution to be amended in Canada. So TLDR is simply wrong. Canada does have a codified constitution
There is one convention. Although the Queen has executive power as the head of state, it can be exercised solely on advice by Ministers of the Crown ie the cabinet and prime minister
Canada has a constitution and it is in great part written. Especially it has a Charter of Rights. Because of Quebec and the Civil law influence saying Canada is is just a follow up of UK is over simplifying and Brit centrist... Also consider the influence of our neighbours to the South with a constitution and politics that also influence us greatly!
@@ProfessorJohnB There are dozens of conventions of varying degree in Canada. You are correct in that one of the key ones is that the Executive acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Many of our conventions are similar to those of the United Kingdom (the entire position of Prime Minister, for example, is through convention), while others have deviated from the UK over the last 150 years (for example, because Brexit was "the" key platform piece of the Tories, if May's deal had been defeated by the House in Canada it would have almost certainly triggered an election, because in Canada it would have been considered a confidence motion).
4:17 So nice to hear that Sir Humphrey's rules finally got written down.
You're either open, or you're the government.
You spelt Israel wrong
Have you not heard of the People's Republic of Isreal? Isreal is real.
Brian Chia Alas, the spelling error is real.
Yes.
ISit4REAL? LOL
They wanted to make sure they're real.
nice to see you guys broadening your scope, good video, keep it up
I'm a first year law student, and this explained more to me than my first 2 weeks of lectures - so thank you!
Thanks could of really used this video before yesterday since I wrote a essay question on the UK Consititution for my Uni 1st year Public Law exam 🤣
5:33
That isn't how a tank's cannon's recoil works.
Shane Rooney not every channel can be beige.
Well, most brits don't even know how a slingshot works, so...
It's an old model tank.
Or the secret bèta test of the new model.
Shane Rooney I don’t care it looks pretty cool!
@@HawkPlatinum eh? what stereotype is that playing off of? Is it a joke about not allowing guns? Cause, if you think about it, not having guns would actually force us to be very well versed in the mechanics of a sling shot. I just realized as well that the English are famous for longbows, a very sling shot like weapon.
Please continue to make these videos, they are very interesting and well made!
Very good summary. Don't agree with the conclusion that not having a codified constitution is a good thing but a good video.
Could you please please make t-shirts and hoodies with all the EU countries wearing shoes??
I like our uncodified constitution. Codified constitutions risk becoming outdated and not adapting quickly enough to new needs. The only major improvement I could suggest for the video (besides just a couple of spelling errors) would be to flesh out the role of the monarchy, particularly as sovereignty is vested in the Queen-in-Parliament (meaning both institutions need to agree for a law to pass).
Jack Tanton Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually use any of the powers she has, as our head of state she is technically as powerful as any Parliamentary President.
I'm all for videos like these! I'd hate to see this channel fade away once brexit is over (even if that's a long ways away). Please, don't be afraid to branch out more!
As an American Lawyer, I am thankful for our Common Law heritage. The Ability for judges to decide cases even if there isnt a law on the official books is an invaluable tool in making the rule of law work.
The thing that's preventing someone from ignoring the UK constitution is really the same thing that's preventing someone from ignoring any written constitution. At the end of the day, a written constitution is just a piece of paper, and if nobody cares about it, it won't have any influence. It's the fact that people agree that the constitution is important and needs to be upheld, that makes it importand and makes sure that it's upheld.
Untrue, because you cannot be forced to defend yourself in a court of law over violating an unwritten constitution. To suggest that they have the same impact when one has legal weight and one doesn't is absurd.
Yes, *theoretically* we could all collectively decide to ignore a written constitution, but it's much less likely because of the legal framework that is in place to enforce it. Therefore, it isn't the same thing that is preventing someone from ignoring a written constitution as an unwritten one.
Congrats on 250k subs!
Good video, but 1:29, you misspelled Israel. As an American, I'm keenly aware of the benefits, and drawbacks, of having a written, codified constitution. Well, really, it's the same feature: constitutional law is incredibly difficult to change, for good or ill.
That actually depends somewhat on the process for amendments. Here in Ireland, we've had eight changes to the constitution in ten years and we're about to have a referendum on another one. Of course, our process for amendments is much simpler than the US (the parliament must approve the proposal and then there's a referendum).
@@kierandouble6414 Absolutely. In the USA, the bar is very, one might argue, impossibly high, at least in the current political climate. Though I also live in California, so I do get some of the 'alter constitution by referrendum', and let me tell you, that isn't always so good either.
"As clear as mortar, but it covers the ground..." (Belafonte). More of these please.
actually Canada does have a Constitution which also includes a charter of rights it was first signed by the queen, the governor general at the time and the prime minister at the time back in 1984
@@PhoebeJRose quebec will always be Canadian
Do a video on Sinn Féin abstentionism!
Actually a tyrannical government could be dissolved by the Queen. So there is that check.
Are you sure about that? I haven't seen the Queen take any action that wasn't based on the advice of her PM.
@@nautilusshell7837 as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@marth8000 I think if you look at what's happened over the last couple of hundred years, there have been few, if any, examples of the sovereign acting without the approval of the government. It seems to be a convention.
BTW, what's a que? A line of people?
Super Kami wrote:
SuperKami
14 minutes ago
@Nautilus Shell as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@nautilusshell7837 Coup* (A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (/pʊtʃ/), a golpe, or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.) but anyway w/e.
The Queen hasn't had to act in the interest of the realm or for her own well being against the government because she's had no need to do so, The government and the monarch equally respect one another. so neither have most monarchs in a long time had to step into politics, but that doesn't mean that that can't change. but yeah i can understand people seeing that as setting a precedent, but again it's all hypothetical's and what-if's.
@@marth8000 So, you're suggesting that the queen will be involved in an illegal etc seizure of power. Somehow, I don't think so. The Queen is more likely to do a knickerless can-can along Piccadilly than get involved in anything of the sort.
Article 50 was passed by parliament and is statute law. may's extension are therefore illegal. Support the English Democrats case in the High Court to get the extensions overturned. We left the EU on the 29th March at 11 pm.
Wow. Youre really looking forward to burning the uk down arent you? Btw, may only asked for the extensions because the elected parliamentarians voted to make her do it! Parliamentary votes are illegal in the uk!??!
@@RoScFan No formal vote, no statute, no law. If Gina Miller can do it, so can Brexiters. otherwise the law is meaningless.
Just a friendly note about our written constitution: Canada Constitution act, 1982 section 52(1):
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, Canada has had a codified constitution since 1982...?
pixlplague You and TLDR are both partially right. Most political scientists seem to be of the opinion that Canada has a partially codified constitution with large parts still uncodified and based on the UK constitution like case law, the monarchy, the role of the prime minister etc. The provinces are a bit more clear in that none of them but one have codified constitutions.
Xerxes Au Considering that most issues between Quebec and Canada have been regarding the repatriation of the constitution of 1982 and the consequences of that constitution (mostly charter of rights and freedom) on provincial and linguistic rights: saying Canada is like the UK is very misleading. In term of law and constitution: Canada lives with the exemple of it’s US neighbour (charter of rights and freedom follows on the example of the bills of rights). Also consider that each provinces have their own parlement and in the case of Quebec use civil law (French tradition) instead of just common law. So as impressed I am with TLDR News: putting Canada among the 5 countries with large non codified constitution is very confusing...
@@ericmarchand1436 I kinda see where Xeres is going and it does make sense, but yeah I'm with you on the potential misrepresentation.
@@ericmarchand1436 Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Let's see what the Brexit Party would do with all this. They have promised to "change politics forever". Chancellor Farage anyone?
Please there is precedent. Lord Protector.
Farage is an idiot on these things… He even states to people "vote for me and if I win I'll tell you what I'll do." Utter madness!!Then again this is BREXIT.
If they did leave properly without him becoming pm wouldn't that neutralise him as that's his primary objective?
@@Darkwintre The problem is that leaving "properly" doesn't seem to be possible without raising the Irish border or pushing Northern Ireland out of the UK. This is why Parliament is a mess. What people actually voted for is impossible so they are trying to figure out what they can give us that looks a bit like Brexit but that is actually achievable. And each party wants to do it in a way that lays blame at the other parties.
@@lellyparker now imagine if May hadn't interfered how would Davies have handled this?
I doubt it would be the problem they're making it, but deliberately avoiding getting on with it as May's Treaty doesn't resolve this doesn't help!
As an A Level Politics teacher actually covering the constitution this is really good, I’m going to use it for my students in the next lesson. Thanks for posting.
Its a shame news creators like this barely get enough funding to sustain themselves
18th September 2019: We don’t have an unelected judiciary making important constitution or political decisions.
*YOU COULDNT HAVE POSTED THIS BEFORE MY PUBLIC LAW 9AM EXAM TODAY*
either way, loved the vid 😔👊
Deathrow pardon 2 minutes too late.
Ah, England does love its reverse legal fictions. Instead of creating or interpreting a law that contradicts reality, you interpret reality as if a law existed. Surely, despite the law saying otherwise, what it meant to say is that the King cannot really disband parliament without the Prime Minister's approval.
Our judiciary are unelected, but appointed by independent commissions. Thank Christ our judges don't also have to appeal to popular support.
3:56 Walter Bagehot's surname is pronounced ['badget] and not "bag-hot" 🤗
I'm gonna be honest: not having your shit written down is probably a bad idea, as the US is learning with a lot of it's implicit traditions recently.
Amazing video. Has a huge UK fan from a foreign country, these videos are really good!
I love all of TLDRs content, particularly Brexit related videos. Moreover, videos such as this that explain political systems in the Uk and America are immensely useful to myself as I’m studying Politics and Government, as well as that they’re really interesting. In short just keep doing what you’re doing and please do produce more videos explaining systems of government.
When I was serving in the German military, we all received a small booklet with our constitution so we all knew what we are defending and what restricts our use of military power.
What do British soldiers get? A shelf full of books? Ticket to the library?
A picture of the queen and the lyrics to "Rule Brittania"?
British military officers, in staff school, get courses on "Aid to the Civil Power" and "Military Ethics." These issues are well discussed.
The UK also doesn't have a real press freedom. And you could see the consquences of this when authorities moved against the Guardian during the Snowden leaks... But on the other hand the UK is the country with the most surveillance.
You didn't mention other treaties that prevent the UK going full crazy, like the European Convention on Human Rights and other EU law.
That, "the UK is the country with the most surveillance" is outdated. We've been overtaken by China (massively) and other countries use much more sophisticated surveillance cameras than we do. We are now behind UAE, Singapore, Japan and The US. OK so being 6th isn't great but you should at least get our facts right.
Politicians have acknowledged freedom of the press, and it has been written into the constitution in the UK. This is why the UK came in 5th place in the world for freedom, however the UK still stands at 40th position for human rights.
As a LLB student preparing for my Public Law exams, videos like these definitely help me get a better picture!
So to bring this back to the facets of parliamentary procedure we've witnessed recently :-
A) The Speaker ruling about bringing May's deal back to parliament that third time mentioned a ruling in a book. Is that a Work of Authority or is that just a list of conventions?
B) The Speaker casting his tie breaker vote as a no. From his wording that definitely sounded like convention speaking. Correct?
@B: It's only convention for the speaker not to vote in the first place. Legally he is a "primus inter pares" (first among equals), which means he is presiding over the sessions, but is otherwise a full member. He has a vote and could use it in any and all divisions. This, in fact, isn't entirely uncontroversial as it robs the constituency of the speaker of its voice in a system that pulled the slider between nationwide majority and local representation all the way to the latter...
EU law was known to supersede national law even before the UK joined the EU in 1973. This was settled in the case of Costa v ENEL (The Italian national electric company) in 1964.
also it is not common Law as understood in England but arises from the effect of statute. It forms part of the constitution by virtue of the European communities act 1973. unless or until the UK leaves the EU.
The EU didn't exist until the early 90's when the Maastricht treaty was signed.
@@jalbo9975 It existed in a different name (The European economic communities or EEC), but the main structure of EU law was already set and case laws from that time are still a part of EU law. The EU gained more authority over the years in comparison to the EEC with Maastricht being an important milestone.
@Lanie Monroe didn't the UK take part in the creation of the EU?
@@amirsrish
6:46
Actually the UK kind of does in the form of the first past the post system...
Great video .... informative & enlightening..... a well explained insight into the British Constitution & associated conventions, applications & affiliated governances including common & statue law ..... if possible could you please do an exploratory video on the ‘transference of laws, legislative power & authority’ to the UK after Brexit ...... as it stands at this moment in time neither the European Union nor Britain have began formal talks on which laws as to be recognised by either party..... or how long current laws / powers & treaties will remain in place ..... thank you TLDR News ....
Still wrangling over "serious votes, and "deadlines", etc. Both sides have barely scratched the surface in re the practical effects of BREXIT on the UK and the EU. Lots of palaver but very little concrete action since the vote in 2016.
Gary L ...... As the UK & European Union haven’t formally separated the chief negotiator(for the EU) & the President of the EU have openly stated and placed anomaly’s into the initial separation treaty that seem to restrain the UK’s ability to manoeuvre, this includes the separation of EU law from UK law....... therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the next phase of talks for leaving the EU will include this subject ....... so the question remains....How long will current EU laws, powers & treaties remain in place AFTER the UK exits the EU ..... & …… how will the UK transfer the legal powers, frameworks & constitutions into UK law when parliament is already fragmented .....the ratifying of legislation for a smooth seamless legal transition looks to be an impossibility at this moment in time .....
@@mikeyb4610 The citizens of the UK voted democratically in 2016 but their elected politicians have not, as yet, given them what they deserved=BREXIT. On the contrary, the citizens of the USA democratically voted in the current criminal junta and got just what it deserved. Go figure???
I'd love more of these! Maybe a video comparing common law with Roman law? Or maybe showing how uncodified constitutions work in Canada and New Zealand.
Pretty sure NZ has a law on the books that is used to "entrench" certain other laws, making them much harder to repeal. One such law is called something along the lines of 'the Constitution act' or some such and lays out a bunch of other specific laws and documents as making up New Zealand's Constitution... Note that the law used to entrench other laws is not itself entrenched, but getting rid of it, then the entrenched law you want to be rid of is probably harder in practice than just getting rid of the entrenched law directly...
Something like that, last I checked anyway. It's a lot more formal and codified than the video implies, though it is not a single fixed and unchangeable document.
For future reference, palm trees aren't actually made of wood. They're not really trees.
*6 months later in the Glorious Republic of New Britannica's reeducation camp no 518:
"To think all this could've been prevented if TLDR had been more knowledgeable about biology."
Do a video on how the Royal family. How much they cost vs how much they generate. 👑🤔😂🤣
Why copy Grey?
Don Wald what? Who is grey.
@@simonhopkins3867 CGP Grey, youtuber.
@@SidheKnight thanks I had seen a couple of his videos but didn't know his name!
@@simonhopkins3867 You're welcome.
I don't know how you're defining codified, but Canada has had a constitution since 1981.
Keep doing videos like this
Can you explain how the EU MEP elections work? Can their be a coalition to have the most votes after the voted have been counted?
Imagine thinking it's bad to have impartial judges appointed by elected officials instead of directly electing judges who bend to whatever flavor of populist thought is trending.
Well if they are appointed directly by elected officials than they can be seen as political spoils and used to entrench a party's ideology in the legal system. I would know that is what has started to become the principle motivation of the Republican Party here in the U.S. Now though, although I would like for the UK to have some form of additional protection for constitutional acts and restrictions on the passage of new ones (say only allowing repeal or new acts in cases where their repeal was called for in the winning parties manifesto) their current system allows for highly indirectly appointed judges to rules on the interpretation of constitutional statute, and for Parliament to change it later if they felt that the judges got it wrong.)
You seemed to have missed out the position of the monarch in all of this. Although the Queen's position may seem to be mainly ceremonial, she does have important powers that add to the checks and balances preventing unjust and oppressive government. I believe she has a definite role in the UK's 'constitution'.
Israel historically lacks a constitution as its law grew out of British Mandate law. So it also lacks a written constitution due to once being governed by the UK.
As an American I found this very informative. I thought the UK was a "constitutional monarchy" and thus had codified constitution.
Well technically you have the Royal head of state that can just dissolve any tyrannical Government and they are head of the armed forces so can even take back control by force theoretically for the good of the realm, I'd say that safeguards things.
Yeah but that likely won't happen, as a tyrannical Government will likely have the backing of the military at that point, and as such the military will probably answer to them regardless of what the monarchy wants.
As much as it's nice to think that the Queen would save us from a tyrannical Government she likely wouldn't, the monarchy is just a figure-head that costs a fortune in tax.
I think you may have missed a trick on Canada (we sorta rubbed off a few documents in that nation) but this was great. All you have to do it get a catchy tune with an old jazz singer and you can make this a schoolhouse rock.
More of this issue would be great!
I would imagine that, if all else fails, and someone tries to screw *everything* up because it isn't technically against the law, there's always the Queen who can step in and say "Oy, stop that." I can't imagine she *would* except in extreme situations where the bad actor is obviously acting against the best interest of the people.
I think the army is the bigger player against such issues. Actually anyone that wants to make REAL coups, as in, really effective ones, has to win the army to their side. Then they can throw a coup. Otherwise theyd just be attacked themselves.
@@RoScFan Hence the UK military swears an oath to the crown, not the government, for what its worth. Quite right though.
Maybe. The last time a British monarch refused to assent to an act of parliament was 1708. It's likely there'd be renewed interest in republicanism in the UK if a monarch was seen to be frustrating the will an elected parliament.
@@superfluidity There was a lot of speculation that would happen after the UK Parliament just passed a private members bill forbidding a "no deal Brexit." Theresa May and the government opposed the bill, but were outvoted. She could have advised the Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent to kill the bill. But did not.
Since such advice violates constitutional convention, Her Majesty would quite rightly refuse it and give the bill Royal Assent anyway.
@@kevinlove4356 Australia 1975 saw the dismissal of the Federal Cabinet as the Queens Governor refused to accept the advice of the Labour PM. Legal but constitutional? You will have to ask aussies what they think about that.
A bit more on the history of Parliament would be interesting, also what parts of the Magna Carta are still in effect?
I think there are two parts of Magna Carta that still apply but the one I remember is the right for trial by jury of peers.
Interesting I'd like to see more of these
We only need two laws,
Do no one harm,
cause no one loss.
The problem with saying "Checks and Balances" is that UK simply doesn't have that many. It is more uncomfortable to call it luck, but that and vigilant individuals who have safeguarded the UK. Had an elected government made a concerted effort of Tyranny it would have been able to have done so legally.
In some cases, it likely would have been easier for a tyrant to rise in the UK's system than the systems of many of the nations that fell to fascism before the second world war.
Rarely is a solidified constitution a detriment to a nation, usually the worst constitutions are those that can be changed at a moments notice making them tools of the majority party or those Documents which are unofficial to begin with.
Since Stonehenge times it has been proven time after time British politics can't function without the help of their neighbours. Without them the UK would have been a dictatorship for centuries.
A written constitution is only a piece of paper. People with moral courage are what stop tyrannies. There are arguments for and against having one. It is a complex matter and admits of no simple answer. Extreme political instability causes them to break down.
Wut? Canada does too have a written constitution. We took it off you lot in the 80's.
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Think of it this way: you're both right. Canada has both a written and unwritten constitution, according to the very written constitution you cite.
Thank you, I will use with my Yr12 Gov-Pol A level students to consolidate learning about the sources of the uncodified or unentrenched constitution
Please do more of these! They're really informative and digestible. Having done law at A level I know I myself am eager to learn more about how my country actually functions politically
The Canada constitution has been codified since 1982 in the constitution act with the charter of rights and freedoms
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
What a mess. Just have a clear written constitution, and regularly update it with some super-majority system.
The Netherlands has a constitution that's been largely the same since 1814, but has seen lots of small updates, the last one in 2017.
How about a video (or two) on how laws are proposed and passed in the EU? Perhaps you can resolve claims such as "THE elected European Parliament has no power" or "The unelected European Commission has all the power".
I second that motion. Maybe elaborate on the "double majority" system and how it makes passing a law without the UK almost impossible...
Still one of my favorite videos you folks have ever made.
6:43 America is far worse off by being hamstrung by its ancient constitution & having unelected judicial officials make huge political decisions.
Be careful of the assumption that an unelected judiciary making important constitutional decisions is somehow a negative thing given that in many countries where marginalized voices struggle to be heard in Parliament, the unelected judiciary whose independence is guarded from political interference (the very model purported by British Colonial Officials during the decolonisation period) is there only place of representation.
"guarded from political interference"
"Political interference" aka democracy.
@@vallraffs Actually no. Not sure if you appreciate constitutional law where constitutional supremacy replaces parliamentary sovereignty, but the ability of parliament to impact the decisions of the judiciary strike against the notion of the rule of law and is therefore anti-democratic. Not every action a democratically elected political body does is actually democratic. To make such an assertion is a bit reductionist.
@@GlenDivo "Anti-democratic"? Not really. Only in a world where the definition of "democracy" counts rule of law over and seperate from the majoritarian principle of power resting with the people and it's representatives would that be the case. What that describes is just strict legalism, not democracy. An unelected judiciary wielding power from law, independent of any mandate from the people, is antithetical to popular sovereignty and thus anti-democratic.
Factortame is not a Common Law decision. Magna Carta is a statute as to the two Articles still relevant. The most important convention is that the King will not refuse consent to a Bill which has pased both HoC and HoL becoming an Act.
More of this. Like, *more*. The Anglophile in me is awestruck by both all this new neatly gathered information and the great work you guys are doing! Kudos and here's to many more videos like this!
One clarifying detail:
Canada has a constitution (in fact two, one from 1867 and one from 1982). However these constitutions are kind of incomplete. It just kind of says "anything not explicitly covered by these laws should be dealt with through British common law and conventions." So more or less, British Common Law (at least pre-1982) is constitutional law in Canada.
But I think it would be untrue to say Canada has no constitution. It might be more accurate to say Canada doesn't have a watertight or absolute constitution.
What is "constitutional" seems very random and dependent on the whims of the ruling class.
Constitution is supposed to be exactly not like that!
Passonator11, It’s more of a traditions manual or something like that
I would love more videos like this. I wish they would teach law in schools, it makes no sense that you are expected to live in a society, where you are expected to be so ignorant of the law, that you must legally be provided with a lawyer if you are in trouble because you arent expected to know what the law is.
Great video, keep 'em coming
I've always said that the UK needs a codified Constitution which defines the powers of the Monarch, the Legaslative, Judicial and Executive branches of government. Because it's absurd that a citizen of the UK must go through myriads of subjective interpretations of what the UK constitution is, when it plays a key role in their lives.
More of these, please! Thanks for sharing!
I’m a Canadian. And we technically do have a constitution but we called it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was signed in 1982 under the Constitution Act. So we at least know our rights.
Actually - a critique on the Benn Act fiasco from a constitutional point of view with aid from a seasoned constitution expert would be highly interesting and constructive.
"this never seems to happen. touch wood." - this is literally happening right now :/
please please pleaseeee do more of these - desperately trying to pass my politics a level in 2 weeks and these vids are really helping!
Casually watching this 6 minutes before my politics A level exam :)
Maybe you guys could do a video on the British Commonwealth?
Pretty sure it's officially called something like "The Commonwealth of Nations" these days (it includes a couple that were never part of the Empire, among other things). Of course, in other contexts it's been simply "The Commonwealth" in the same way it was "The Empire" the whole time.
1:26 The struggle (for good proofreading) is real.
This video is just absolutely superb- please do more like it. I think it's great that you're expanding from just Brexit videos.
IMHO, the fact that nothing can actually stop a tyrannical government from destroying the UK, yet that never happened (and I hope will never happen), is the true beauty of British politics.
Very good way to have all these laws feels very safe listening to all this and makes you feel proud to be a uk citizen
6:24
uh, guys, that's a palm tree, it doesn't have any wood
When talking to American exchange students, I study politics at university, and even my American Girlfriend the only answer I can give to "what's stopping a dictatorship if you don't have a constitutional" the only real answer I've ever really been able to give is just "It's not conventional for us to go down that root".
Even a codified constitution can't stop a dictatorship. It's just written down words, it has no inherent power.
As an American, I find all of your videos interesting. This was an excellent video and topic as usual.
William Keogh, me too but I don’t like it when they hit at the constitution and our God endowed rights.
Anyone else think it fitting that, whilst talking about an uncodified/nonexistant constitution being unable to stop the government from turning tyrannical, he said "touch wood" and placed up a picture of a tall grass that doesn't even grow in Britain?