For series 3 my ideas are: 1) Should Scotland have a second referendum? 2) Should we get rid of the monarchy? 3) Should we get rid of the house of lords? 4) Should Heathrow get a third runway?
@@billyfox6368 tldr fake news twisted the whole argument around in a tory-like fashion - basically, nobody questions kill bill didn't create covid, but lots of people question his financial and unethical motives behind his involvement with the big pharma industry - a point which has been conveniently omitted from the entire video.
I don't know, having the speaker effectively telling a government minister to shut up or get out was interesting. Admittedly he is not as flamboyant though.
@@TheBaconWizard, With that proposal, it's evident who the stupid one really is. Tell me, genius, how will a fw button get rid of the background music. Moron.
The percentages at the end are pretty pointless and out of place - almost as if viewers opinions don't matter and are only included because a poll was conducted - they aren't linked in with the video enough nor are they in great detail.
@@itachi2011100 "They're journalists" ^exactly. The original comment was on the poor presentation & incorporation of the poll into the video. i.e. editing skills. Data science has nothing to do with it.
Could many Brits be holding out for revolutionary action? Codification could also turn traditional precedents into established law, meaning that revolutions don't come easily. It depends, arguably, on the established amendment process, on what is firmly instilled as the method for constitutional change. For instance, Canada has a codified federal constitution, but for longstanding reasons it's nearly impossible to change it. But changes do happen. Another factor is how much authority is packed within the constitution. If it's limited in scope and does not assume authority beyond its interpretation, then the government, and the greater society surrounding it, retains a lot of flexibility. I ought to note that as an American (outside of Louisiana, because that's complicated), I'm assuming a common law tradition, that the judiciary has always held a lot of power in interpretation of the law, and that precedents consequently have legal relevance.
@@eksortso It's complicated. Parliament is sovereign. We have an elected dictatorship. Judges are only free to interpret parliaments intention and will look at parliamentary discussions to do this, and of course try to stick to precedent. Parliament can always make new laws to tie the judges to. But we the people are king. We vote them in at the local level and can remove them and reduce their powers. Thus the recent weak governments, hung parliaments and landslide wins. That's the unwritten constitution reflecting the will of the people in action.
I see that research for this video is lacking. A constitution can have articles regarding emergency powers for the cabinet/government which would empower them to act swiftly to new events. Like for an example, giving the government for a fixed time (3 months) to make laws regarding the crisis without parliament,for an example to give them power to meet via ZOOM and not in-person. A constitution doesnt have to be ammended via referendum, some articles like the structure of government, human rights, territorial jurisdiction could be made stronger and could only be changed via referendum, but other articles would need a 2/3 majority or something along those lines Also you failed to notice that a constitution can be codified and soft, meaning it could be changed via regular parliament vote. But still be one single document. All of the benefits you pointed out in the status quo are actually the benefits of a soft constitution not of a non codified constitution
Indeed also don't see any reason why the consititution could not also include provisions to extend the term of such emergency powers in the event of a longer term ongoing crisis the current coronavirus crisis likely to be just such an example. Would simply require a provision like "This term may be extended at any time by a 2/3rds majority in parliament with each such extension being limited to maximum of three months from the date of passing" or basically 2/3rds majority can extend it but another vote would be needed within at most three months to sustain it further as that would be the maximum period any given vote could authorise. Binding it to the date of the vote is to ensure the approval can never stack and prevent parliament from assessing the situation as circumstances change this way a parliamentary review is guaranteed at least once every three months no matter what.
This is BY FAR, my favourite comment on any TLDR News video. Why? Because it so simply shows how, not only this could/should be done, but because of the simple nature of codified constitutions, a BREXIT where essentially the populous simply had its rights ripped away, essentially (imho) because it didn't even know the breadth of rights it had. This logic also follows to responsibilities (i.e. who is responsible for what, so HMG can't blame the Commission).
The part you're missing is that a constitution also provides limits on the government. That's not a current situation in the UK because, unlike every Enlightenment government of the last quarter millennium, the UK does not place the people above the government. Parliamentary Sovereignty says that there can be no limits above Parliament and that is in direct conflict with virtually every codified constitution by the very nature of those documents. And Parliamentary Sovereignty is necessary unless the UK chooses to make the actual monarchy no longer the de jure basis for government. Since Parliament is the tool of the monarch they cannot be limited without saying the monarch is limited and, although not true in any practical basis, it is still the legal case that Parliament can only have their will superseded by the monarch at whose pleasure they serve and the monarch can only have her will superseded by God at whose pleasure she serves. An actual constitution that limits the power of government to being a tool of the people is contradictory, in legal theory, with the concept of a DGR monarchy and while that is not the case in practice, it cannot be changed in law without changing the theory of government from "tool of a divinely appointed sovereign" to "tool of the people".
In most cases such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark it was brought about through revolutions, although I am not sure about Sweden. Norway gained hers through independence from Sweden.
@@davidmoore2267 sorry but the Netherlands did not get it's first king through a revolution but Napoleon ordered his brother to become our first king. before that point the Netherlands was a republic only after the defeat of France the Netherlands did want to become a kingdom. (in a way we did the backwards way. from being a republic first and then wanting to be a kingdom later)
Parliament limits the government very well, the whole select committee process is very interesting and you should look into it. It's flexible too, so there are no where near as many gridlocks stopping governance as in European nations and there are no anachronistic limits like in the US with the second amendment or even alluded conventions like the electoral college. This proved crucial with the likes of forming a coalition government quickly in 2010, for one instance, and this coalition government was literally only a coalition in name- it was very amicable and ran surprisingly smoothly. This video also missed out a few crucial things like the Supreme Courts right to remonstrate which can strike down executive actions (just not legislative ones) with ease and then consider the role of the monarch- while they're there mostly for show, in a 1933/4 Weimar situation the monarch can easily step in and shut it down. Having everything in one place and making it simple is appealing for simple people, but is it any better? Proof supporting that argument that it is is yet to arise.
There are countries with a parliamentary system and a constitution, that is, most democracies in the world are ones. So mainly comparing to the US is unhelpful.
"We have flexibility to cope with changes in society. " Duke of Westminster sits in Parliament because his ancestor 1000 years ago was was the best mate of a French Duke . Sounds like you are keeping up with the changes to society. Sure.
@@ChristopherNFPactually most hereditary nobles don't sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Reform Act of 1999 actually has most of the lords being life peers. The government would have it much harder to reform the House of Lords if the constitution was codified.
You missed the point of what a Constitution is and why is needed. 🙄 *A Constitution is a law that limits the powers of the branches of government.* To do so a Constitution must require a larger majority (e.g. two thirds of the parliament) to be amended, while in the UK a simple majority in parliament can literally do anything they want and change the "unwritten Constitution" at will, for example a single party in the UK can get elected and then suspend elections and human rights indefinitely. Unlikely sure, but completely legal in the UK (because a single majority in Parliament has absolute power in the UK) and completely illegal in other democracies, because the Constitution lists the things that the government and parliament can never do, and the mechanisms to enforce the limits.
Unlikely? The human rights are about to be removed by the Tories due to Brexit. They're one of the two major reasons why a trade deal with the EU isn't possible, because the EU would require the UK to adhere to the human rights act, which the Tories refuse to sign.
Brexit has fuck all to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that’s under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, NOT the EU. As long as we stay in the United Nations, we live by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as those 30 articles are the foundations of civilised society.
Except that couldn't happen. Because the UK very much does have a constitution. And the constitution is very clear, The Queen can veto any bill and practically shut down parliament if she wished so. She doesn't do that lightly. the monarchy have known since the civil war that one wrong step and her, and all her family lose their heads. Thus they avoid using power at all costs. But if a party came to power through a thoroughly rigged election, started creating death squads, banned the opposition, etc... you can be damn sure that would not fly with the queen. The queen can't let tyranny happen. The monarchy in the UK only survives because of the stability of having a functional representative democracy, staying beyond a political fight, and not saying anything political. Even if she secretly supported the tyrants, she knows that angry members of the public will come after her and her family. And when the tyrants lose power, she and her family will be massacred. Hence maintaining a civil and fair democratic system fighting amongst itself so she can stay the heck away from it is very much in her interest. Also, if push comes to shove, she's in charge of the army. A tyrannical movement would have a VERY tough time trying to prevent her from keeping them in check. A codified constitution can't prevent tyranny. Tyrants will always find loopholes, interpret it differently, and or will extort folk to get around it. Only a great balance of power can prevent tyranny.
@@sebastienwatling349 You get it Sebastian. Queen is a chess piece but people underestimate her power because she wears dresses and waves. Remember this is the only person that UK Prime Ministers tell their secrets to.
@@sebastienwatling349 When has the Queen last excised her right to do so? Or any UK monarch, for that matter. It is all well and good to say that in theory, the monarch is the counterweight, but in practice, the monrach does diddly squat.
As an American, I shudder to think what could happen if some of our most recent presidential administrations or congresses, including the current set, would do if they only had to abide by precedent and implied limits on power. Maybe an implicit constitution is best for the UK currently, but if you have someone willing to flaunt all precedent and soft checks on power, then an implied constitution does not do much to stop them compared to a codified constitution (although at the end of the day, if nobody follows a constitution, codified or not, it's meaningless anyways)
I'm not sure really. I don't think of an implicit constitution as a "soft check". The individual parts of the constitution here are all just as unbreakable as a single document. Sure, a big enough majority can override them, but that's true of the US constitution too.
Judicial Review as a mechanism isn't exactly a soft check, its literally the Government being called before the Courts to justify and explain their actions.
When Boris Johnson tried to prorogue (dissolve) parliament to try and prevent parliament from stopping a no-deal brexit, he also tried to mask it as a regular prorogation that happens after an election, it just so happens to be much longer than normal. So what happened when the PM tried to abuse a precedant? He was brought before the high courts who ruled he was abusing his power, and who ruled the prorogation was null and void (even though there was no explicit document saying exactly when and how long the prorogation can be). This is the basis of common law in the UK, it's about being reasonable and using common sense, not going by the book for every issue.
@@kamil.g.m Absolutely spot on! The prorogation was undeniably politically motivated (technically as it should be as it is part of the political process), but the JR into the prorogation was equally undeniably politically motivated due to the ongoing Brexit debate at the time. In so far as the Supreme Courts ruling creates a constitutional precedent, it does, as it is the highest Court in the land, however the whole debate was heavily weighted on scrutiny over Brexit. Therefore the ruling can't exactly be relied on as anyone declaring a subsequent prorogation (that people take issue with) could simply say that the facts are materially different and, lo and behold, everyone's back in the High Court to kick the ball rolling again. Judicial Review is a fantastic mechanism, however, in my opinion, does not create the sort of constitutional precedent that a lot of people believe and want it to.
Canadian here, historically still a fledgling nation, I want to say that our constitution came about because of a peaceful desire to administer our own governance and a waning desire to govern afar by Great Britain. The British North America Act 1867 established the division of governmental powers, but it wasn't until the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) where it establishes what rights a citizen has in relation to others and to the government. Combined they become the Canadian Constitution. But in essence the, British, Human Rights Act is what we have in our charter for rights and freedoms. I just don't have the knowledge to say if you emphasize the importance of inalienable rights. I think we have a fairly balanced constitution. Having one source document is always going to be easier for everyone rather than having to check multiple sources.
"Having one source document to check will always be easier than multiple documents." Especially when leading legal institutions can't even agree on what those multiple documents are.
There are a couple non-codified of our (Canadian) Constitution as well: parliamentary traditions more importantly, First nations traditional laws and some unwritten treaties.
If you have a written constitution you can print it and hand it out for free to every citizen. I think that makes it easier to understand politics and raises awareness and interests. Or forms a sort of identity. In Germany my school handed out hard copies to us when we were 16. If you're afraid of adopting to current events swiftly, you can include a law that the constitution can be changed with a two-third majority in parliament. (In Germany one example was tightening asylum law in 1990s).
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”... except when you have people being arrested for saying the wrong opinions and a Supreme Court that’s becoming extremely politicised.
The Supreme Courts heyday is over, they had a small window to strike with a weak government and a polarised nation, seeing Boris has a solid and loyal majority now they gonna have to weaken their tone else he will abolish them
@@muni5450 And why not fix this with a written constitution? Defining clear limits for judiciary and legislature would fix this for good. Saying a prime minister will keep them in check works only as long as that person is in power.
The supreme court becoming politicised? The video clearly states that parliamentary supremacy is very important I'm the UK constitution. Proroguing parliament for such an unprecedented amount of time clearly prevents that from happening. Nothing political about it.
It is quite clear the makers of the video have done so from a unique English viewpoint. Although highlighting amendments to the US constitution it discusses constitutions as immutable documents, which, of course, they are not. Any constitution is subject to change. There are explicit constitutional limitations on how to implement those changes to ensure sufficient and persistent mandate exists for any proposed changes either by requiring super majorities or ratification in at least 2 terms of parliament or a referendum or any combination of these. The fundamental rights and principles of government typically enshrined in constitutions are so fundamental that I cannot imagine any circumstances under which a constitution would hinder legislation that is required to deal with something quickly. As such as an argument for a non codified constitution it really only demonstrates lack of understanding. The mentioned politicization of the judiciary depends far more on how judges are appointed (political or apolitical) than on the presence of a constitution. In fact it is usually the constitutional court that ensures a single parliament cannot remove fundamental rights that were enshrined under previous parliamentary (or even popular) sovereignty. Without a constitution a country is not so much a democracy (where the supremacy of individual rights over government whim is absolute) and should be considered a dictatorship of the current majority without any guarantees for those in the current minority. Which, in essence might be what the UK prefers, given the persistence of the FPTP voting system and the impossibility of English politics to reach any form of compromise. The victor takes all and the rest can "go whistle". As all branches of power are fused in the UK, in principle, all redheads could be declared enemies of the state in a few weeks (months at the most) time (with few trips back and forth from HoC to the HoL) and subsequently executed as parliaments sovereignty is absolute. Without requiring even an election and with potentially a PM elected within his own party by a few thousand people. Tradition cannot be enforced, manuals can be rewritten without scrutiny and laws can be passed and repealed as quickly as parliament can be prorogued. Even the magna carta is hardly worth the paper it's written on, if a simple act of parliament can revoke it and veto the HoL if it objects.
The US constitution is the best example? it is the worst example. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The Canadian constitution on the other hand a piece of legislative masterwork.
The vagueness of the US constitution is what allowed for the structure of the government to be maintained for hundreds of years. As the times change the interpretation of the loosely based constitution allowing for the freedoms and structure of the government to be maintained while still moving with the times. This is great due to making it hard for any political party to quickly change the constitution to meet an agenda.
The US constitution is currently the longest constitution in history... That's not successful? Everybody else writes these "masterpieces " with no flexibility that get rewritten every 50 years. Not a good argument buddy
@@OopsFailedArt Lol, just because a constitution is the oldest, doesn't mean it's the best. Or would you argue that Paul Biya, president of Cameroon for the past 45 years, is the best elected head of state at the moment?
@@Highollow I never said the best. I said its hilarious to suppose it's not successful. A Toyota camry is not the best car in the world but its MASSIVELY successful because it meets its core purpose perfectly. I own one and love it but I know if I had unlimited funds I'd probably want a Bugatti.
The US constitution is the best example, because it best protects rights. No other country has such strong protections for freedoms like free speech that the US has, because most other countries don't have 2 strong chambers and a high threshhold for amendment.
As an American, I shudder to think the amount of laws that a political science major must remember just to know what their rights are. Despite U.S.'s perceived ignorance about their rights, most can at least enumerate some from the bill of rights. It is pretty incredible to us that the average UK citizen knows what their rights are despite it being scattered all over the place. I think the constitution should absolutely be compiled so that it is more transparent. Currently the UK constitution is akin to the Latin Bible, where the only source of information is locked behind a wall of knowledge, and while less restrictive, it still hinders some from accessing the source of information. Even if it is hard, compile the laws that are core to the constitution and amend later.
you notice these cuts/ late video fixes in all of their videos to be honest. Lack of quality from their side. It's video editing 101 that you put the backing music in last so that it's not chopped up.
You compared with the US but it would have been more relevant to compare with other parliamentary democracies such as Germany. US is a presidential democracy so the members of the cabinet are not part of the Congress. In France which is semi-presidential, ministers can be part of the parliament but don't have to and would not seat anyway. It would be interesting to see how the three powers are separated in Germany and compare it with the UK as you mentioned lines are blurred in the latter. Finally, other parliamentary monarchies like Netherlands, Danemark, Sweden, Belgium could be interesting to compare with. Alright, I guess that would make a documentary and not a 15 minutes video (perhaps an idea for a podcast?). It's just US is probably not the best to compare with as they don't have the same regime.
Well, it would not be the work of any single politician or any single party. It would have to be a body of people to work on the codification. Furthermore, there would have to be some system by which the people could ratify the constitution. In other words, it absolutely could not be the work of just one person.
I like the idea of an objective trasnparent document to define specific roles and obligations. However, I also think that fexibility is important as some things require an idiographic case by case approach. Maybe we should go for a small codified constitution which defines the role of each power, and the process for selection, but leaves how to exercise the said powers to conventional methods.
You can have it both ways. A constitution can define these limits of power and have clause to change these limits. Usually to change these limits a 2/3 majority in parliament is needed in my country. Additionally there are fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution that can't be stripped away from people to prevent governmental overreach.
@@marcelh7864 the idea of some fundamental rights is ok, but anything else I wouldn't like due to amendments probably needing 2/3 vote which I find ridiculous as how can an old rule restrict the ability of the majority.
I don't understand how this is even remotely acceptable. If I try to tell my Boss I made a deal with my customer but I didn't write anything down we just kind of agreed, that would be absolutely unacceptable! Heck if I want to become a Gym member I need to sign 5 pages of legal conditions. How is it becoming a gym member is clearly lined out but running a 1st world country is done by ear?
@@abbofun9022 Yes, when it goes wrong. It nearly did, with our prime minister twice in danger of going to prison. Then he signed some documents in invisible ink and apologise to the Queen, so we gave him unlimited power for the next 5 years. Got to admit all constitutionally dangerous, but so much fun. We retain the right of riots, and we are used to using it, so I think we continue to be OK under our thousand year old system.
@@DarkHarlequin Think of it the other way around; a deal between two people, or joining a gym, is very simple and easy to define. It's easy to write the contract, and to interpret it. But the legal status of millions of people making up an entire nation? That can't ever be fully defined on paper.
@@abbofun9022 And yet the UK has gone without a disaster for hudreds of years while other countries seem to write a new constitution every time they 'elect' a new despot
The most important aspect of a constitution was it to be codified would be how it can be amended in the future. It is clear that we won't get it right the first time around and that future generations will face new issues - there needs to be a clear and robust process for how those can be added or removed, it can't be too easy or too hard else an overreaching government could abuse those powers. For examples a problem, we don't have enough data to codify today but are likely to have to deal with in the 21st century are the rights and laws of self-aware AI.
Frankly, as an American whose constitution, because of the amendments, is both written and unwritten at the same time, I've come to the conclusion that nations need to rewrite and restructure their constitutions every 100 to 150 years. Britain, like America, is overdue.
We changed our current constitution 5 times in the last 30 years alone. The US constitution is not the only constitution in the world. There are 200 different ones that are way more flexible and up-today compared to the US one. Our constitution even have part about the right of nature and animals in it.
@@neventomicic330 I'm fully aware that our constitution is neither the only nor the first constitution. Why is it you assume my ignorance? Were you taught to be rude to Americans? In school our teachers always said we should be polite and helpful, but never condescending, to people from other nations. Did your teachers teach you to be rude? Or is it some issue of your own?
Yes we should have a written constitution and then follow that with proportional representation to prevent extreme governments and to maximise democratic representation of different opinions within Parliament.
The U.S. constitution CAN be modified and amended, it's just very difficult, as it should be. One important reason the U.S. needed a constitution was not just for the rights of people, which were outlined in amendments, but for relationship of the FEDERAL government to the states, since we are in fact a federation of 50 states not just one big state. The original states didn't want to join the union without a constitution explicitly stating the powers and limits of the federal government.
If the constitution is codified, you can get yourselves something cool for the first line like "The Republic of Korea is owned by the people." for example.
An interesting question on a codified constitution for the UK rather is if parliamentary culture considers having or is even willing to codify hard to change standards, who are expected to be understood by most citizens. Right now, about anything can be changed at will of a simple majority, which may also lead to less diligence in writing a law or an act: any later surprises can be addressed by yet another act or by changing the existing one. Constitutions are written in a different way: their articles are intended not to be changed frequently and only with a very high assurance by more than just a simple majority. More recent constitutions do also have Eternity Clauses, who do assure fundamental rights or limits and don’t permit any changes or amendments to put those articles out of order. A constitution is also intended to be clear and understandable by everyone (compare that to many acts, who are written by legal experts in legalese, their very own language). Some laws are even intentionally vague in some aspects, which doesn’t work with a constitution. As such, a codified constitution cannot be written the way many laws are being produced by today and does require its own talents and standards. Both may make it very hard for the UK government or parliament to accept and enact such a constitution.
The UK is not as Democratic as it thinks it is, the first-past-the-post system is pretty bad as that almost guarantees that significant portions of the population get ignored, it also stimulates a harsh win-or-lose culture instead of encouraging cooperation and consensus.
First-past-the-post is the only system that can get majorities but it only works properly with two political parties. With proportional representation it is very difficult especially with multiple parties that struggle in get a majority thereby leaving a country ungovernable and constantly needing more elections to break any deadlock, as is the constant problem in Italy.
That was a *very* limited view on what your audience said. There was much more to the questions you asked, much more you could have statistically done: How do answers differ between UK and non-UK citizens, just to name an example. The rest of the video was good (though a bit long winded), but that was just weak.
Prefer the status quo, because it’s flexible and can change with time compared to the US, still debating the wording of lines in the constitution that uses sentences from the past. Side note, Canada’s constitution is invariably hard to edit.
The problem with a codifed constitution is that it ends up being held up like a religous document, unchangable and unchallangable, regardless of how times change.
No. The 1688/1689 bill of rights already gives us the right to bare arms. However, our rule of law makes it illegal to carry arms because it implies intent to do harm. Common sense (whatever that is) constitutes our best guide.
I'd say unwritten is the best. A problem arises 100 or so years after the constitution is written down. Who can predict the landscape in the future? Joe Rogan points this out in a bit of stand up where he imagined Thomas Jefferson coming back to life in 2020 and saying 'You didn't write any more shit??"
We changed our current constitution 5 times in the last 30 years alone. Don't look at the US constitution as only constitution in the world. There are 200 other ones.
Imo every year the constitution, (national operating system), should be updated. So if we compile it in 2021, then it would b UKNOS v2021. Then the following year would be UKNOS v2022 etc.
It's not possible to have democracy without a 'codified' constitution. If politicians can change the scope of their own powers on-the-fly (which is a critical part of any constitution) there are effectively no constraints on their power and the political class are masters of the people. Recently in the UK Westminster took control of everybody's personal hygiene without asking; in Japan they did not - which is a democracy?
@@HansVonMannschaft But that would at least allow people to be able to read it. Where can you easily read the most important rules of the UK now? In Croatia, I need 2 clicks on the internet to find exactly what are the rules and obligations of the parliament, prime-minister, constitutional court, and president, and what are my citizen's right that cannot be changed by a simple majority in the parliament, but by 2/3 of votes or/and referendum.
It would be interesting to have an episode talking about different types of Proportional Representation & the First Past The Post as that is highly relevant to the codified vs non codified constitution, along with many other issues you talk about on your channel.
Andrew Nutbourne , anything left of the USA after Trump is essentially thanks to their codified constitution. One shudders to think of what the orange one could do without that limitation.
^ exactly. America's constitution has long worked, and is now being strained and tested by an unprecedented amount of manipulation by two increasingly uncooperative and aggravating parties. There are lots of countries with constitutions, including Canada (my home), France, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, India, etc. Don't discount it because of the struggles of one country 🙂
@@abbofun9022 I'm afraid I fail to view it as an effective limitation. A presidency is arguably a form of monarchy (not a hereditary one of course) with power held by one person. As I see it, the president of the USA is allowed to wield their power and act on whim. The Queen can not do this and her government is also limited. Although they do have the royal prerogative, they can not overrule an act of parliament. Both systems have their problems, it is very difficult for an average British citizen to determine whether the government is trying to do something they are allowed to do. But, when a legal challenge is brought, we do have a focus on outcome and the spirit of legislation and allow the law to follow rather than lead. I think this is a good thing, personally. One of the reasons I do not like the way the US Constitution is used is the second amendment. Firstly, the notion of an unamenable amendment, as many seem to view it, is very strange. Secondly, the wording itself refers to an organised malitia, at a time when malitias were military units that existed to repel an invasion. The modern equivalent would be much more similar to the US national guard or UK territorial army, than disconnected members of the public. Yet the words are sanctified in their original form and many people are resistant to questioning either the intention or their relevance to the modern era. I know people will have differing opinions on which rights take precedence, but in my opinion the right not to be killed should trump the right to material possessions. If every victim of a gun homicide in the UK and USA had survived, the homicide rates would be the same. But the USA has a homicide rate that is four times higher and gun violence makes up three quarters of that.
@@williamm9435 I appreciate your point, but if we have a system that is currently (miraculously) working then I don't think we should replace it with one that sometimes doesn't. I think the danger is that people see reforms such as creating a codefied constitution as a silver bullet that will cure all problems. If we can find one example of a codefied constitution that doesn't work in the way we want it too, it might not be what we are looking for. Looking at other countries is worthwhile, as maybe a codefied constitution is the best method, so long as you have the right institutions and customs to support it. Perhaps the evolution of language has been America's problem, the current Indian, Danish, South Korean, french and Australian constitutions were enacted in the 20th century. It is very hard to say what effect this has on constitutions. If we develop a system today to keep the language of our constitution relevant for the unforeseeable future, how can we know it will be fit for purpose in centuries to come? The current UK system is seemingly stupid, but for some reason it is still working. I wouldn't say it's been around for 800 years, as I think it relies heavily on the bill of rights 1689.
@@ajn2370 I agree with all of those points. And you're right; if it's not broke, don't fix it. Cause there are lots of countries that have constitutions that have succeeded, and many that are struggling just as bad, and often worse, than Britain. Constitutions are not inherently good or bad, it's more important to see how they are written and implemented. My point was don't look to America for the effectiveness of constitutions. It is one of many perspectives. And as you, @Nub93 and I have said, there's a lot more that goes into it. 🙂 Perhaps it's the perspective I come from. As a citizen of a western country close to America and often ignored, it is frustrating to see people point often exclusively to America to prove why X doesn't work, or Americans pointing at themselves to say why Y works, to prove a point, when it is but one of many countries, set of institutions, and traditions that exist. Like Canada, we are a blend of America and Britian, and have some other unique aspects. I'm sure there are many countries that can provide similarly unique perspectives on the success of various political aspects. My original response was not a direct praise of constitutions wholeheartedly, I just wanted to say that one shouldn't discount something because America is in a tough spot right now. Also, I appreciate the two of you for your replies as well 🙂
The UK doesn't need a codified constitution, what is badly needed are entrenched laws that protect rights...laws whose provisions override those enacted by the ordinary legislative process, and which are deliberately difficult to create, amend or repeal (needing supermajorities in Parliament, or ratification by referendum, or both). "Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
Despite a few notable exceptions (such as the 35 year ban on abortion) Ireland's been well-served by our codified constitution since the 1930s. Our constitution makes the people sovereign, meaning all laws passed by the legislature have to be in line with the constitutional rights of the people and the people can amend the constitution through popular vote (we're now 38 amendments down). Because of this, Ireland has always had to put EU treaties to popular vote before they could be brought in and has made same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Our constitution also sets out the roles and structures of each arm of the state and establishes our entire court system. Our constitution also gives the head of state (the Irish President) the power to refer bills from parliament to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality before signing the bills into law. Ireland's constitution also gives every person a variety of rights, from the right to work, a right to bodily integrity, a right to life and the state's protection, a right to found a family, a right to marry, a right to vote, etc. If the UK was to consider codifying its constitution, a much better starting point than the US constitution would be to look at the Irish constitution.
The greatest challenge to a codified Constitution is in updating it to modern times (as seen in the USA). If a hybrid could be defined that protected base rights, but allowed for fine details to be defined and redefined elsewhere would be best.
The thing is, in ireland we have a constitution, however it doesn't limit our goverments ability to pass new laws. If a constitutions is written right then the only laws it should limit have a direct impact on the rights of the people, such as censorship and other infringements on human rights. In the uk, online privacy is a huge problem with the conservitive goverment passing laws that let the police and intellegence agencys have unprecidented power in accsessing peoples private messages and internet activity. They even passed a law that required social media companies to lower the encryption of their private meesaging services e.g whatsapp. This was so that they could hack peoples messages easily and moniter what they do. Also they do not require a warrent to do this. The goverment said that this was to stop terrorism, however this is still a serious breach of privacy for the wider population. Those kinds of laws would not have been legal if the uk had a codified constitution that had the human right to privacy enshrined in it.
thats not a problem with an uncodified constitution, usa has a codified constitution and has the freedom act. Thats a problem with how your human rights can be trampled on if its for "national security"
The entire idea behind the US Constitution, was to place the sovereignty in the hands of the public, and for the public to be represented in Congress by the House, which controls the purse and the creation of legislation. The Senators, at the time, were installed by the several state's legislatures to represent them, which was later changed to be selected by the public of each state. The Bill of Rights, which is the appendix of the US Constitution, can be changed by a majority vote from the public from a majority of states (an amendment). It was by design, to keep lawmakers from easily changing the laws affecting human rights, which, quite frankly, is one of Britain's biggest problems. In Britain, you would have to have the Monarch agree to give up their sovereignty to make this work. Either the Executive is the Monarch, or the PM.
If adaptability is difficult for a codified constitution then perhaps take a gander at Switzerland and their direct democracy which allows everyday people to change the constitution if they so please if enough signatures can firrst get a referendum on an amendment and then a majority then vote in favor of the amendment then it passes into the constitution. Mayby that could adress those issues.
Given how many of our friends across the pond greatly abuse that 2nd Amendment and the President seems to be wilfully misrepresenting the 1st Amendment, I don't think it would help us in the slightest.
Codified constitutions are different around the globe. The last time I checked the UK didn't have a fundamental right to bear arms... That's a way to derail the conversation. The rights given in a constitution are fundamental rights (which doesn't mean they can't be limited) so they can't be "abused". You can criticizes the use of arms in the protests but from my laymen perspective they haven't abused the 2nd Amendment (This doesn't necessarily mean their behaviour was lawful..Again I'm not a lawyer!). Free speech is not a right to defamation or the incitement of the masses at least in the constitution of my country. What you put in your constitution and what limits you set for branches of government and the people is entirely up to you.
I think a time when a new "emergency" Act has just been rushed through Parliament without opposition and making sweeping changes to civil rights is not a good time to be tinkering with the Constitution.
I wonder in who's opinion UK is "one of the most democratic"? In reality, UK's, voting system means that House of Commons, does very poor job of reflecting the will of the people. So UK as a whole is not very democratic. There are many much more democratic voting sustems, that would make UK actual democracy :)
English people always thing of England as being Da Bestest and Da Brightest and Da Biggest. Even challanging such beliefs, let alone pointing out how they do not reflect reality, is met with instant scorn.
I would worry if we had a codified constitution. The US constitution is outdated in some respects and has enforced outdated values on a new generation because people hold onto the constitution for dear life, eg: the 2nd amendment which hasn't been updated to meet the current needs of the American people.
thats a reason to have it in my opinion. that rights cant be removed from an individual because it falls out of popular favour. meny criminal cases could go easier if the got rid of the 4th or 5th amendment.
My argument against a codified constitution is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. It's something that is causing huge problems in the US right now and it probably made perfect sense to add it in when it was, but because it's been added, it's almost impossible to remove it whether it makes sense to keep it or not. I don't know what our version of the Second Amendment would be, but I can almost guarantee that we'd add something that makes sense now and learn in 200-300 years that it's causing problems. We'd be stuck with it. This video touched on that and had the conclusion that I usually reach: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
to me its a argument for a codified constitution. (whether you like guns or not). that rights cant be removed because they fall out of popular favour. that freedom of speech and freedom of the press apply to the internet and not just ink and paper.
While the overall video was superb, well thought out and entertaining, there were multiple cases where the audio cut abruptly. This, unfortunately, detracts the enjoyability of the video and gave the impression of lower standards being accepted compared to your other content. I hope this is either fixed for those that paid or doesn't appear in the remaining videos in the series.
It would just take so much effort and create so many problems, so because the flexibility is often beneficial, it's just not worth it; we have more important issues right now. By the way, you should create the pros and cons videos beforehand because this video almost made me change my mind. Then, when you do the survey, repeat the pros and cons to some extent and go into more depth about the statistics.
As an American, this is a no brainer... all of the problems described could be fixed by actually addressing it explicitly, and leaving parts vaguer where necessary and just copy an American tradition, where it just says Congress shall legislate this issue... eventually...
When it comes to laws there is a very simple system. If you have a written law, it has loopholes. If you say those loopholes are fixed by implying that the important part is the spirit and not the wording, then you don't have any written laws at all, only unspoken ones. Whilst an unwritten constitution provides no solid line for the government to stop at, in reality this means they stop far shorter than this line, as even going near the fuzzy border of "is this legal" results in a loss of confidence, and if severe enough, public disobedience. This is an inbuilt element of our laws, that one is not required to stick to the wording of it, but the spirit of it, one cannot get away with the excuse of "technically its not illegal.". In a similar vein through the quirk of jury nullification it provides us with the ability to pardon those who have broken the word of the law but stuck to the spirit of it. Relying on the public, a living breathing democratic body, rather than the judiciary to hold our politicians to account provides a more stable and tolerant society, for the betterment of all.
I think I originally voted for a codified constitution. But after watching this I change my mind. Perhaps a new poll on these topics to see if opinions have changed?
The music is very repetitive and annoying, and there are multiple audio glitches throughout this video. Also I fail to see the difference between your second and third questions, "more transparent" vs. "clearer" these are literally synonymous. That said, while I do think a written constitution would be beneficial to our country, I also agree that (because of such long standing traditions) the only reason one would ever get properly implemented is if we got invaded, if there was a revolution, or if our current government so completely failed the British public and failed to uphold or abuse the standards to such a degree that a new party was elected with making a written constitution as one of its main objectives. So all in all, very unlikely...
@TLDR News Friendly criticism, I haven't found this opinionated series as good as the first, I think you should include your data statistics throughout the video rather than just giving our opinions on the subject at the end of the video! It would be good to provide our ideas and opinions alongside the explanations and theories of the story. Thanks for the content, keep going!
Canada didn't have its own Constitution till 1982 (without a war etc). Prior to that we relied alot on UK/London to "approve" our laws (BNA). Interesting fact, is was our current PM"s father, who brought it back to Canada in 1982. If you want you can photo copy our Canadian Constitution and start there? 😀. As it was based much on our UK/British roots and UK parliamentary system, plus other modern additions such as First Nations. It also includes House of Commons, House of Lords ( our Senate) and Governor general (the Queen's representative). Good luck 👍. Don't ask how we got it past Quebec, that's a long and twisted story😔
What a load of english BS... I think you should research more than the US constitution to base your opinions, and probably even research that one in specific a bit more. And by the way, A government with a minority of the votes, having a super majority in Parliament does not equate to a democracy.
A codified constitution isn't perfect, but it's been working for us for 231 years. It's a good foundation to build your house on. The only hang up for y'all would be where to put a hereditary ruling class into this mix, i.e. the house of lords, I gather they wouldn't take it too kindly and go out of their way to quash it. The idea of a codified constitution would be, dare I say, revolutionary.
It seems easy to just have a skeleton constitution AND set of regulations outlining how it can be enforced & operated. So the constitution becomes something that just helps interpretation of governance, but having articles of association can be amended and adjusted.
I think that we absolutely should, especially abolishing official powers of the monarchy and reforming the electoral system. But we must be careful that it's worded such as not to be worshipped as infallible hundreds of years later when conditions have changed. Edit: Didn't realise they meant just compiling documents rather than making anything based on modern ideas
I would recommend having a look at the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It is a Constitution which clearly sets out separation of powers (trias politica), and accountability measures. It includes a fully justiciable Bill of Rights, which goes far beyond many other country's constitutions as it not only guarantees civil and political rights, but also socio-economic rights such as housing, education, healthcare, etc.. It includes institutions that are there to support and grow constitutionalism; institutions such as the Public Protector which may investigate any matter, be it mero moto, or otherwise. In South African constitutionalism, no single arm of government is superior, rather the Constitution itself is supreme. As such, all laws, executive action, exercise of power, etc., (including court rulings) must comply with the provisions set out in the Constitution. Even Parliament is subject to the Constitution.
tbh I'm not a fan of the new layout in Series2. The short background-music loop, also its too high volume and the frequently deep wooshs are rather distracting and make it difficult to follow. Keep it clear and don't overdo it with effects. I like the rather unspectacular und direct way of news presenting you usually deploy.
REMAIN UNCODIFIED The USA offers some great examples of why codifying sucks. - Uncodified is realistic about complexity: the electorate has free open access to their rights but it's not pretending to be simple; the US 2nd amendment has become controversial as views on personal weapons has changed but it's simplicity means ordinary citizens become excessively politicised. - Uncodified balances politicisation: ordinary citizens are free to get as political as they wish if they want to get into the weeds; in the US the perceived simplicity causes these oversimplified debates and ideas to proliferate so readily they're almost forced on ordinary citizens requiring them to choose a side when they just want to go about their business. - Uncodified makes the constitution serve the people: everyone agrees refining, adjusting, making more fair for today's citizens is the goal (disagree about the method if you want); the US are stuck arguing over what way is appropriate to interpret a constitution that's very hard to amend landing in a deadlock of how best to bow down to the constitution. - Uncodified is a more perfect tension between governing branches: if it's all negotiable between executive, legislative and judiciary then the system can adjust better to problems: the US pretends these branches are perfectly separate and balanced while the executive and legislative are actually in a constant tug-of-war with each party trying to recruit the judiciary. - Uncodified keeps power slightly more intangible: the US have rules that will never change because it requires those in power to give up power (e.g. a more non-partisan way for a judge to be appointed would be by a committee of peers but no president will give up that power, presidential executive power in general seems too great if the hype can be believed but there's too much codified and it would require a president to volunteer to have less power).
Canada can easily be a model for the UK when it comes to a clear written constitution. It defines the powers of the Governor General (The Monarch), The Prime Minister and their Cabinet (Executive), The Supreme Court (Judicial) and the Senate and the HoC (Legislature). And when amending the constitution it’s up to the house to have a majority of votes and for all 10 provinces and 3 territories to ratify the amendment. Which the UK should do too. It’s tough to get done granted, it took a time for our government to create the constitution and a lot of concessions had to be made. But it’s worth it in the end.
I presume that people who have chosen the answer correctly have searched online before answering. Doing the same survey without having the ability to search elsewhere for the answer to the first question, the results would have been significantly different.
For series 3 my ideas are: 1) Should Scotland have a second referendum? 2) Should we get rid of the monarchy? 3) Should we get rid of the house of lords? 4) Should Heathrow get a third runway?
@Gravity Grid They should also do one on proportional representation.
@@Albimar17 In that video, TLDR News said that Bill Gates didn't create the virus and what's wrong with the vaccine?
@@Albimar17 What a psycho :D
@@Albimar17 garbage.
@@billyfox6368 tldr fake news twisted the whole argument around in a tory-like fashion - basically, nobody questions kill bill didn't create covid, but lots of people question his financial and unethical motives behind his involvement with the big pharma industry - a point which has been conveniently omitted from the entire video.
To be honest, I miss Bercow yelling Order :(
I don't know, having the speaker effectively telling a government minister to shut up or get out was interesting. Admittedly he is not as flamboyant though.
Good riddance to bad rubbish
You know what they say about simple things and simple minds.
but its fun watching hancock bieng told off in the commons
OOOOODAAA OOODAA
Sorry but that background music is SO annoying!
I couldn't endure it, so I stopped watching.
@@frcluc too stupid to use a fast-forward button?
@@TheBaconWizard, With that proposal, it's evident who the stupid one really is. Tell me, genius, how will a fw button get rid of the background music. Moron.
@@TheBaconWizard What the heck were you trying to say?
The percentages at the end are pretty pointless and out of place - almost as if viewers opinions don't matter and are only included because a poll was conducted - they aren't linked in with the video enough nor are they in great detail.
of a 14 minute video, the only time actually spent talking about the 'opinionated' part was the last 2 mins :/ i'd appreciate it being more balanced.
@@ishika5619 Don't expect it. Obvious what side he is on.
They're journalist not data analyst to be able to make out any statistical trends or a deeper analysis.
@@itachi2011100 "They're journalists"
^exactly. The original comment was on the poor presentation & incorporation of the poll into the video. i.e. editing skills. Data science has nothing to do with it.
@@itachi2011100 Actually, that is part of being a journalist. If you don't know, you ask an expert.
Of course, but too many brits see any kind of change as giving up on their traditions.
The same way Americans can’t give up their ridiculous love for guns. I’m not a big fan of changing things for the sake of it.
Could many Brits be holding out for revolutionary action? Codification could also turn traditional precedents into established law, meaning that revolutions don't come easily.
It depends, arguably, on the established amendment process, on what is firmly instilled as the method for constitutional change. For instance, Canada has a codified federal constitution, but for longstanding reasons it's nearly impossible to change it. But changes do happen.
Another factor is how much authority is packed within the constitution. If it's limited in scope and does not assume authority beyond its interpretation, then the government, and the greater society surrounding it, retains a lot of flexibility.
I ought to note that as an American (outside of Louisiana, because that's complicated), I'm assuming a common law tradition, that the judiciary has always held a lot of power in interpretation of the law, and that precedents consequently have legal relevance.
I'm not a lawyer, by the way. Just really interested.
@@eksortso It's complicated. Parliament is sovereign. We have an elected dictatorship. Judges are only free to interpret parliaments intention and will look at parliamentary discussions to do this, and of course try to stick to precedent. Parliament can always make new laws to tie the judges to. But we the people are king. We vote them in at the local level and can remove them and reduce their powers. Thus the recent weak governments, hung parliaments and landslide wins. That's the unwritten constitution reflecting the will of the people in action.
Giving up traditions is a good thing imo xD
I see that research for this video is lacking.
A constitution can have articles regarding emergency powers for the cabinet/government which would empower them to act swiftly to new events. Like for an example, giving the government for a fixed time (3 months) to make laws regarding the crisis without parliament,for an example to give them power to meet via ZOOM and not in-person.
A constitution doesnt have to be ammended via referendum, some articles like the structure of government, human rights, territorial jurisdiction could be made stronger and could only be changed via referendum, but other articles would need a 2/3 majority or something along those lines
Also you failed to notice that a constitution can be codified and soft, meaning it could be changed via regular parliament vote. But still be one single document.
All of the benefits you pointed out in the status quo are actually the benefits of a soft constitution not of a non codified constitution
Indeed also don't see any reason why the consititution could not also include provisions to extend the term of such emergency powers in the event of a longer term ongoing crisis the current coronavirus crisis likely to be just such an example. Would simply require a provision like "This term may be extended at any time by a 2/3rds majority in parliament with each such extension being limited to maximum of three months from the date of passing" or basically 2/3rds majority can extend it but another vote would be needed within at most three months to sustain it further as that would be the maximum period any given vote could authorise. Binding it to the date of the vote is to ensure the approval can never stack and prevent parliament from assessing the situation as circumstances change this way a parliamentary review is guaranteed at least once every three months no matter what.
Indeed but the traditional argument is that of a US styled hard constitution.
@@vispian7688 Irrelevant to the original comment and the flaws (due to the lack of research) displaced in the video.
@@vispian7688 A constitution so hard it has been amended 33 times so far...
This is BY FAR, my favourite comment on any TLDR News video. Why? Because it so simply shows how, not only this could/should be done, but because of the simple nature of codified constitutions, a BREXIT where essentially the populous simply had its rights ripped away, essentially (imho) because it didn't even know the breadth of rights it had.
This logic also follows to responsibilities (i.e. who is responsible for what, so HMG can't blame the Commission).
The part you're missing is that a constitution also provides limits on the government. That's not a current situation in the UK because, unlike every Enlightenment government of the last quarter millennium, the UK does not place the people above the government.
Parliamentary Sovereignty says that there can be no limits above Parliament and that is in direct conflict with virtually every codified constitution by the very nature of those documents. And Parliamentary Sovereignty is necessary unless the UK chooses to make the actual monarchy no longer the de jure basis for government. Since Parliament is the tool of the monarch they cannot be limited without saying the monarch is limited and, although not true in any practical basis, it is still the legal case that Parliament can only have their will superseded by the monarch at whose pleasure they serve and the monarch can only have her will superseded by God at whose pleasure she serves.
An actual constitution that limits the power of government to being a tool of the people is contradictory, in legal theory, with the concept of a DGR monarchy and while that is not the case in practice, it cannot be changed in law without changing the theory of government from "tool of a divinely appointed sovereign" to "tool of the people".
Boom! Well said Boris.
There are monarchies with codified constitution where sovereignty relies on people e.g. Spain.
In most cases such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark it was brought about through revolutions, although I am not sure about Sweden. Norway gained hers through independence from Sweden.
@@davidmoore2267 sorry but the Netherlands did not get it's first king through a revolution but Napoleon ordered his brother to become our first king. before that point the Netherlands was a republic only after the defeat of France the Netherlands did want to become a kingdom. (in a way we did the backwards way. from being a republic first and then wanting to be a kingdom later)
Parliament limits the government very well, the whole select committee process is very interesting and you should look into it. It's flexible too, so there are no where near as many gridlocks stopping governance as in European nations and there are no anachronistic limits like in the US with the second amendment or even alluded conventions like the electoral college. This proved crucial with the likes of forming a coalition government quickly in 2010, for one instance, and this coalition government was literally only a coalition in name- it was very amicable and ran surprisingly smoothly.
This video also missed out a few crucial things like the Supreme Courts right to remonstrate which can strike down executive actions (just not legislative ones) with ease and then consider the role of the monarch- while they're there mostly for show, in a 1933/4 Weimar situation the monarch can easily step in and shut it down.
Having everything in one place and making it simple is appealing for simple people, but is it any better? Proof supporting that argument that it is is yet to arise.
There are countries with a parliamentary system and a constitution, that is, most democracies in the world are ones. So mainly comparing to the US is unhelpful.
The only argument against a constitution seems to be a vague claim on "flexibility" while the pro-constitution have very solid points.
Yeah, so solid that half the countries in the world just write new constitutions every time they 'elect' a new despot.
"We have flexibility to cope with changes in society. "
Duke of Westminster sits in Parliament because his ancestor 1000 years ago was was the best mate of a French Duke .
Sounds like you are keeping up with the changes to society. Sure.
@@MB-st7be Source?
@@Joe-- , I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask for a source for a hyperbolic statement mate.. kind of defeats the purpose.
@@ChristopherNFPactually most hereditary nobles don't sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Reform Act of 1999 actually has most of the lords being life peers.
The government would have it much harder to reform the House of Lords if the constitution was codified.
A humble advice from a Dane: Keep it simple.
You missed the point of what a Constitution is and why is needed. 🙄
*A Constitution is a law that limits the powers of the branches of government.* To do so a Constitution must require a larger majority (e.g. two thirds of the parliament) to be amended, while in the UK a simple majority in parliament can literally do anything they want and change the "unwritten Constitution" at will, for example a single party in the UK can get elected and then suspend elections and human rights indefinitely.
Unlikely sure, but completely legal in the UK (because a single majority in Parliament has absolute power in the UK) and completely illegal in other democracies, because the Constitution lists the things that the government and parliament can never do, and the mechanisms to enforce the limits.
Unlikely? The human rights are about to be removed by the Tories due to Brexit. They're one of the two major reasons why a trade deal with the EU isn't possible, because the EU would require the UK to adhere to the human rights act, which the Tories refuse to sign.
Brexit has fuck all to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that’s under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, NOT the EU. As long as we stay in the United Nations, we live by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as those 30 articles are the foundations of civilised society.
Except that couldn't happen.
Because the UK very much does have a constitution. And the constitution is very clear, The Queen can veto any bill and practically shut down parliament if she wished so.
She doesn't do that lightly. the monarchy have known since the civil war that one wrong step and her, and all her family lose their heads. Thus they avoid using power at all costs.
But if a party came to power through a thoroughly rigged election, started creating death squads, banned the opposition, etc... you can be damn sure that would not fly with the queen.
The queen can't let tyranny happen. The monarchy in the UK only survives because of the stability of having a functional representative democracy, staying beyond a political fight, and not saying anything political. Even if she secretly supported the tyrants, she knows that angry members of the public will come after her and her family. And when the tyrants lose power, she and her family will be massacred.
Hence maintaining a civil and fair democratic system fighting amongst itself so she can stay the heck away from it is very much in her interest.
Also, if push comes to shove, she's in charge of the army. A tyrannical movement would have a VERY tough time trying to prevent her from keeping them in check.
A codified constitution can't prevent tyranny. Tyrants will always find loopholes, interpret it differently, and or will extort folk to get around it. Only a great balance of power can prevent tyranny.
@@sebastienwatling349 You get it Sebastian. Queen is a chess piece but people underestimate her power because she wears dresses and waves. Remember this is the only person that UK Prime Ministers tell their secrets to.
@@sebastienwatling349 When has the Queen last excised her right to do so? Or any UK monarch, for that matter. It is all well and good to say that in theory, the monarch is the counterweight, but in practice, the monrach does diddly squat.
As an American, I shudder to think what could happen if some of our most recent presidential administrations or congresses, including the current set, would do if they only had to abide by precedent and implied limits on power. Maybe an implicit constitution is best for the UK currently, but if you have someone willing to flaunt all precedent and soft checks on power, then an implied constitution does not do much to stop them compared to a codified constitution (although at the end of the day, if nobody follows a constitution, codified or not, it's meaningless anyways)
I'm not sure really. I don't think of an implicit constitution as a "soft check". The individual parts of the constitution here are all just as unbreakable as a single document. Sure, a big enough majority can override them, but that's true of the US constitution too.
Judicial Review as a mechanism isn't exactly a soft check, its literally the Government being called before the Courts to justify and explain their actions.
When Boris Johnson tried to prorogue (dissolve) parliament to try and prevent parliament from stopping a no-deal brexit, he also tried to mask it as a regular prorogation that happens after an election, it just so happens to be much longer than normal.
So what happened when the PM tried to abuse a precedant? He was brought before the high courts who ruled he was abusing his power, and who ruled the prorogation was null and void (even though there was no explicit document saying exactly when and how long the prorogation can be).
This is the basis of common law in the UK, it's about being reasonable and using common sense, not going by the book for every issue.
@@kamil.g.m Absolutely spot on!
The prorogation was undeniably politically motivated (technically as it should be as it is part of the political process), but the JR into the prorogation was equally undeniably politically motivated due to the ongoing Brexit debate at the time. In so far as the Supreme Courts ruling creates a constitutional precedent, it does, as it is the highest Court in the land, however the whole debate was heavily weighted on scrutiny over Brexit. Therefore the ruling can't exactly be relied on as anyone declaring a subsequent prorogation (that people take issue with) could simply say that the facts are materially different and, lo and behold, everyone's back in the High Court to kick the ball rolling again.
Judicial Review is a fantastic mechanism, however, in my opinion, does not create the sort of constitutional precedent that a lot of people believe and want it to.
Yeah Trump would have become a dictator if the constitution did not exist.
Canadian here, historically still a fledgling nation, I want to say that our constitution came about because of a peaceful desire to administer our own governance and a waning desire to govern afar by Great Britain.
The British North America Act 1867 established the division of governmental powers, but it wasn't until the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) where it establishes what rights a citizen has in relation to others and to the government.
Combined they become the Canadian Constitution.
But in essence the, British, Human Rights Act is what we have in our charter for rights and freedoms. I just don't have the knowledge to say if you emphasize the importance of inalienable rights.
I think we have a fairly balanced constitution.
Having one source document is always going to be easier for everyone rather than having to check multiple sources.
"Having one source document to check will always be easier than multiple documents."
Especially when leading legal institutions can't even agree on what those multiple documents are.
There are a couple non-codified of our (Canadian) Constitution as well: parliamentary traditions more importantly, First nations traditional laws and some unwritten treaties.
If you have a written constitution you can print it and hand it out for free to every citizen. I think that makes it easier to understand politics and raises awareness and interests. Or forms a sort of identity. In Germany my school handed out hard copies to us when we were 16. If you're afraid of adopting to current events swiftly, you can include a law that the constitution can be changed with a two-third majority in parliament. (In Germany one example was tightening asylum law in 1990s).
The english constitution party is now a registered political party.
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”... except when you have people being arrested for saying the wrong opinions and a Supreme Court that’s becoming extremely politicised.
The Supreme Courts heyday is over, they had a small window to strike with a weak government and a polarised nation, seeing Boris has a solid and loyal majority now they gonna have to weaken their tone else he will abolish them
@@muni5450 And why not fix this with a written constitution? Defining clear limits for judiciary and legislature would fix this for good.
Saying a prime minister will keep them in check works only as long as that person is in power.
The supreme court becoming politicised? The video clearly states that parliamentary supremacy is very important I'm the UK constitution. Proroguing parliament for such an unprecedented amount of time clearly prevents that from happening. Nothing political about it.
That short ambient music loop in the background is so irritating. Please make sure you don’t do this to your normal videos!
It is quite clear the makers of the video have done so from a unique English viewpoint. Although highlighting amendments to the US constitution it discusses constitutions as immutable documents, which, of course, they are not. Any constitution is subject to change. There are explicit constitutional limitations on how to implement those changes to ensure sufficient and persistent mandate exists for any proposed changes either by requiring super majorities or ratification in at least 2 terms of parliament or a referendum or any combination of these. The fundamental rights and principles of government typically enshrined in constitutions are so fundamental that I cannot imagine any circumstances under which a constitution would hinder legislation that is required to deal with something quickly. As such as an argument for a non codified constitution it really only demonstrates lack of understanding. The mentioned politicization of the judiciary depends far more on how judges are appointed (political or apolitical) than on the presence of a constitution. In fact it is usually the constitutional court that ensures a single parliament cannot remove fundamental rights that were enshrined under previous parliamentary (or even popular) sovereignty. Without a constitution a country is not so much a democracy (where the supremacy of individual rights over government whim is absolute) and should be considered a dictatorship of the current majority without any guarantees for those in the current minority. Which, in essence might be what the UK prefers, given the persistence of the FPTP voting system and the impossibility of English politics to reach any form of compromise. The victor takes all and the rest can "go whistle". As all branches of power are fused in the UK, in principle, all redheads could be declared enemies of the state in a few weeks (months at the most) time (with few trips back and forth from HoC to the HoL) and subsequently executed as parliaments sovereignty is absolute. Without requiring even an election and with potentially a PM elected within his own party by a few thousand people. Tradition cannot be enforced, manuals can be rewritten without scrutiny and laws can be passed and repealed as quickly as parliament can be prorogued. Even the magna carta is hardly worth the paper it's written on, if a simple act of parliament can revoke it and veto the HoL if it objects.
The US constitution is the best example? it is the worst example. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The Canadian constitution on the other hand a piece of legislative masterwork.
The vagueness of the US constitution is what allowed for the structure of the government to be maintained for hundreds of years. As the times change the interpretation of the loosely based constitution allowing for the freedoms and structure of the government to be maintained while still moving with the times. This is great due to making it hard for any political party to quickly change the constitution to meet an agenda.
The US constitution is currently the longest constitution in history... That's not successful? Everybody else writes these "masterpieces " with no flexibility that get rewritten every 50 years. Not a good argument buddy
@@OopsFailedArt Lol, just because a constitution is the oldest, doesn't mean it's the best. Or would you argue that Paul Biya, president of Cameroon for the past 45 years, is the best elected head of state at the moment?
@@Highollow I never said the best. I said its hilarious to suppose it's not successful. A Toyota camry is not the best car in the world but its MASSIVELY successful because it meets its core purpose perfectly. I own one and love it but I know if I had unlimited funds I'd probably want a Bugatti.
The US constitution is the best example, because it best protects rights. No other country has such strong protections for freedoms like free speech that the US has, because most other countries don't have 2 strong chambers and a high threshhold for amendment.
A codified constitution is very uncontroversial outside the UK
school shootings are uncontroversial in US doesnt mean we want them g
As an American, I shudder to think the amount of laws that a political science major must remember just to know what their rights are. Despite U.S.'s perceived ignorance about their rights, most can at least enumerate some from the bill of rights. It is pretty incredible to us that the average UK citizen knows what their rights are despite it being scattered all over the place. I think the constitution should absolutely be compiled so that it is more transparent. Currently the UK constitution is akin to the Latin Bible, where the only source of information is locked behind a wall of knowledge, and while less restrictive, it still hinders some from accessing the source of information. Even if it is hard, compile the laws that are core to the constitution and amend later.
Completely agree. It creates boundary for engagement.
Is the video borked for anyone else? the audio starts skipping around the 4:50 mark
Yes!
Yes
I was pretty surprised more people weren’t commenting on this
The first skip I noticed was at 4:00. It would be good if they can fix this and re-upload it.
you notice these cuts/ late video fixes in all of their videos to be honest. Lack of quality from their side. It's video editing 101 that you put the backing music in last so that it's not chopped up.
You compared with the US but it would have been more relevant to compare with other parliamentary democracies such as Germany. US is a presidential democracy so the members of the cabinet are not part of the Congress. In France which is semi-presidential, ministers can be part of the parliament but don't have to and would not seat anyway. It would be interesting to see how the three powers are separated in Germany and compare it with the UK as you mentioned lines are blurred in the latter. Finally, other parliamentary monarchies like Netherlands, Danemark, Sweden, Belgium could be interesting to compare with. Alright, I guess that would make a documentary and not a 15 minutes video (perhaps an idea for a podcast?). It's just US is probably not the best to compare with as they don't have the same regime.
One thing about codifying a constitution now would be who could be trusted to do it? As too many people would distrust any single politician or party.
Well, it would not be the work of any single politician or any single party. It would have to be a body of people to work on the codification. Furthermore, there would have to be some system by which the people could ratify the constitution. In other words, it absolutely could not be the work of just one person.
It'll need to get passed by the Commons, the Lords. The HM and the people vote of specific parts of it.
I like the idea of an objective trasnparent document to define specific roles and obligations. However, I also think that fexibility is important as some things require an idiographic case by case approach. Maybe we should go for a small codified constitution which defines the role of each power, and the process for selection, but leaves how to exercise the said powers to conventional methods.
You can have it both ways. A constitution can define these limits of power and have clause to change these limits. Usually to change these limits a 2/3 majority in parliament is needed in my country. Additionally there are fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution that can't be stripped away from people to prevent governmental overreach.
@@marcelh7864 the idea of some fundamental rights is ok, but anything else I wouldn't like due to amendments probably needing 2/3 vote which I find ridiculous as how can an old rule restrict the ability of the majority.
THE BACKGROUND MUSIC IS AWFUL AND KILLS THE VIDEO FOR THE HARD OF HEARING LIKE ME!!!!
YES I AM SHOUTING!!!!
I've been waiting for this one! Personally, I subscribe to Lord Sumption's view that a flexible and uncodified constitution is the best.
Agreed
I beg you to stop saying "nucular"
I totally disagree! ;) It makes my day everytime this cretin says nucular nstead of nuclear - he's sure nailin' Palin ;)
Seconded.
I kinda love the fact that our country just gets run by guess work and that there's nothing even written down that says it should be like this
Neil Moulang , it is cute indeed UNTIL it goes wrong, currently the UK has no true safeties build in. A disaster waiting to happen.
I don't understand how this is even remotely acceptable. If I try to tell my Boss I made a deal with my customer but I didn't write anything down we just kind of agreed, that would be absolutely unacceptable!
Heck if I want to become a Gym member I need to sign 5 pages of legal conditions. How is it becoming a gym member is clearly lined out but running a 1st world country is done by ear?
@@abbofun9022 Yes, when it goes wrong. It nearly did, with our prime minister twice in danger of going to prison. Then he signed some documents in invisible ink and apologise to the Queen, so we gave him unlimited power for the next 5 years. Got to admit all constitutionally dangerous, but so much fun. We retain the right of riots, and we are used to using it, so I think we continue to be OK under our thousand year old system.
@@DarkHarlequin Think of it the other way around; a deal between two people, or joining a gym, is very simple and easy to define. It's easy to write the contract, and to interpret it. But the legal status of millions of people making up an entire nation? That can't ever be fully defined on paper.
@@abbofun9022 And yet the UK has gone without a disaster for hudreds of years while other countries seem to write a new constitution every time they 'elect' a new despot
The most important aspect of a constitution was it to be codified would be how it can be amended in the future. It is clear that we won't get it right the first time around and that future generations will face new issues - there needs to be a clear and robust process for how those can be added or removed, it can't be too easy or too hard else an overreaching government could abuse those powers. For examples a problem, we don't have enough data to codify today but are likely to have to deal with in the 21st century are the rights and laws of self-aware AI.
Frankly, as an American whose constitution, because of the amendments, is both written and unwritten at the same time, I've come to the conclusion that nations need to rewrite and restructure their constitutions every 100 to 150 years. Britain, like America, is overdue.
We changed our current constitution 5 times in the last 30 years alone. The US constitution is not the only constitution in the world. There are 200 different ones that are way more flexible and up-today compared to the US one. Our constitution even have part about the right of nature and animals in it.
@@neventomicic330 I'm fully aware that our constitution is neither the only nor the first constitution. Why is it you assume my ignorance? Were you taught to be rude to Americans? In school our teachers always said we should be polite and helpful, but never condescending, to people from other nations. Did your teachers teach you to be rude? Or is it some issue of your own?
get rid of that awfull music
Yes we should have a written constitution and then follow that with proportional representation to prevent extreme governments and to maximise democratic representation of different opinions within Parliament.
I don’t really care either way by a codified constitution, but we need Proportional Representation to fix our politics
The U.S. constitution CAN be modified and amended, it's just very difficult, as it should be. One important reason the U.S. needed a constitution was not just for the rights of people, which were outlined in amendments, but for relationship of the FEDERAL government to the states, since we are in fact a federation of 50 states not just one big state. The original states didn't want to join the union without a constitution explicitly stating the powers and limits of the federal government.
If the constitution is codified, you can get yourselves something cool for the first line like "The Republic of Korea is owned by the people." for example.
An interesting question on a codified constitution for the UK rather is if parliamentary culture considers having or is even willing to codify hard to change standards, who are expected to be understood by most citizens.
Right now, about anything can be changed at will of a simple majority, which may also lead to less diligence in writing a law or an act: any later surprises can be addressed by yet another act or by changing the existing one.
Constitutions are written in a different way: their articles are intended not to be changed frequently and only with a very high assurance by more than just a simple majority.
More recent constitutions do also have Eternity Clauses, who do assure fundamental rights or limits and don’t permit any changes or amendments to put those articles out of order.
A constitution is also intended to be clear and understandable by everyone (compare that to many acts, who are written by legal experts in legalese, their very own language). Some laws are even intentionally vague in some aspects, which doesn’t work with a constitution.
As such, a codified constitution cannot be written the way many laws are being produced by today and does require its own talents and standards. Both may make it very hard for the UK government or parliament to accept and enact such a constitution.
The UK is not as Democratic as it thinks it is, the first-past-the-post system is pretty bad as that almost guarantees that significant portions of the population get ignored, it also stimulates a harsh win-or-lose culture instead of encouraging cooperation and consensus.
First-past-the-post is the only system that can get majorities but it only works properly with two political parties. With proportional representation it is very difficult especially with multiple parties that struggle in get a majority thereby leaving a country ungovernable and constantly needing more elections to break any deadlock, as is the constant problem in Italy.
@@davidmoore2267 ,well u can have ranked votes and if after all the rounds there's no clear winner. Then the one with the most votes wins.
That was a *very* limited view on what your audience said. There was much more to the questions you asked, much more you could have statistically done: How do answers differ between UK and non-UK citizens, just to name an example. The rest of the video was good (though a bit long winded), but that was just weak.
Prefer the status quo, because it’s flexible and can change with time compared to the US, still debating the wording of lines in the constitution that uses sentences from the past.
Side note, Canada’s constitution is invariably hard to edit.
which is well and good if you bend it like Beckham. Perhaps not so cool if it's being bent by a 5yo dipped in bronzer
The problem with a codifed constitution is that it ends up being held up like a religous document, unchangable and unchallangable, regardless of how times change.
I think you're confusing how Americans view _their_ constitution with how they're treated in general.
I think that mostly due to the nostalgia of the founding fathers of the USA. Don't believe every1's going to be like that.
You know the great thing about tradition is that it can change.
the music sucks guys , please turn it down for the next videos
Nicely done- best one yet, I’d say.
Off to a bad start, stating that the best example of a constitution is the american...
No.
The 1688/1689 bill of rights already gives us the right to bare arms. However, our rule of law makes it illegal to carry arms because it implies intent to do harm. Common sense (whatever that is) constitutes our best guide.
@Mark Turner Quite right, Catholics inexplicably already had that right.
I'd say unwritten is the best. A problem arises 100 or so years after the constitution is written down. Who can predict the landscape in the future? Joe Rogan points this out in a bit of stand up where he imagined Thomas Jefferson coming back to life in 2020 and saying 'You didn't write any more shit??"
We changed our current constitution 5 times in the last 30 years alone. Don't look at the US constitution as only constitution in the world. There are 200 other ones.
Imo every year the constitution, (national operating system), should be updated. So if we compile it in 2021, then it would b UKNOS v2021. Then the following year would be UKNOS v2022 etc.
It's not possible to have democracy without a 'codified' constitution. If politicians can change the scope of their own powers on-the-fly (which is a critical part of any constitution) there are effectively no constraints on their power and the political class are masters of the people.
Recently in the UK Westminster took control of everybody's personal hygiene without asking; in Japan they did not - which is a democracy?
Couldn’t you codify it into one document but parliament can change it with only majority just like changing the law?
That would make it pointless
@@HansVonMannschaft But that would at least allow people to be able to read it. Where can you easily read the most important rules of the UK now? In Croatia, I need 2 clicks on the internet to find exactly what are the rules and obligations of the parliament, prime-minister, constitutional court, and president, and what are my citizen's right that cannot be changed by a simple majority in the parliament, but by 2/3 of votes or/and referendum.
Atleast all the General bits would be together.
Me: I was writing essay on this topic 3 days ago, how did I miss it?
Video: uploaded 1 day ago
Me: oh, lucky me
It would be interesting to have an episode talking about different types of Proportional Representation & the First Past The Post as that is highly relevant to the codified vs non codified constitution, along with many other issues you talk about on your channel.
I would like to support a codefied constitution but, looking at the USA, I just can't.
Same reason I don't support elections to the upper house.
Andrew Nutbourne , anything left of the USA after Trump is essentially thanks to their codified constitution. One shudders to think of what the orange one could do without that limitation.
^ exactly. America's constitution has long worked, and is now being strained and tested by an unprecedented amount of manipulation by two increasingly uncooperative and aggravating parties.
There are lots of countries with constitutions, including Canada (my home), France, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, India, etc.
Don't discount it because of the struggles of one country 🙂
@@abbofun9022 I'm afraid I fail to view it as an effective limitation. A presidency is arguably a form of monarchy (not a hereditary one of course) with power held by one person. As I see it, the president of the USA is allowed to wield their power and act on whim. The Queen can not do this and her government is also limited. Although they do have the royal prerogative, they can not overrule an act of parliament.
Both systems have their problems, it is very difficult for an average British citizen to determine whether the government is trying to do something they are allowed to do. But, when a legal challenge is brought, we do have a focus on outcome and the spirit of legislation and allow the law to follow rather than lead. I think this is a good thing, personally.
One of the reasons I do not like the way the US Constitution is used is the second amendment. Firstly, the notion of an unamenable amendment, as many seem to view it, is very strange. Secondly, the wording itself refers to an organised malitia, at a time when malitias were military units that existed to repel an invasion. The modern equivalent would be much more similar to the US national guard or UK territorial army, than disconnected members of the public. Yet the words are sanctified in their original form and many people are resistant to questioning either the intention or their relevance to the modern era.
I know people will have differing opinions on which rights take precedence, but in my opinion the right not to be killed should trump the right to material possessions. If every victim of a gun homicide in the UK and USA had survived, the homicide rates would be the same. But the USA has a homicide rate that is four times higher and gun violence makes up three quarters of that.
@@williamm9435 I appreciate your point, but if we have a system that is currently (miraculously) working then I don't think we should replace it with one that sometimes doesn't. I think the danger is that people see reforms such as creating a codefied constitution as a silver bullet that will cure all problems. If we can find one example of a codefied constitution that doesn't work in the way we want it too, it might not be what we are looking for.
Looking at other countries is worthwhile, as maybe a codefied constitution is the best method, so long as you have the right institutions and customs to support it. Perhaps the evolution of language has been America's problem, the current Indian, Danish, South Korean, french and Australian constitutions were enacted in the 20th century. It is very hard to say what effect this has on constitutions. If we develop a system today to keep the language of our constitution relevant for the unforeseeable future, how can we know it will be fit for purpose in centuries to come? The current UK system is seemingly stupid, but for some reason it is still working. I wouldn't say it's been around for 800 years, as I think it relies heavily on the bill of rights 1689.
@@ajn2370 I agree with all of those points. And you're right; if it's not broke, don't fix it. Cause there are lots of countries that have constitutions that have succeeded, and many that are struggling just as bad, and often worse, than Britain. Constitutions are not inherently good or bad, it's more important to see how they are written and implemented.
My point was don't look to America for the effectiveness of constitutions. It is one of many perspectives. And as you, @Nub93 and I have said, there's a lot more that goes into it. 🙂
Perhaps it's the perspective I come from. As a citizen of a western country close to America and often ignored, it is frustrating to see people point often exclusively to America to prove why X doesn't work, or Americans pointing at themselves to say why Y works, to prove a point, when it is but one of many countries, set of institutions, and traditions that exist.
Like Canada, we are a blend of America and Britian, and have some other unique aspects. I'm sure there are many countries that can provide similarly unique perspectives on the success of various political aspects.
My original response was not a direct praise of constitutions wholeheartedly, I just wanted to say that one shouldn't discount something because America is in a tough spot right now.
Also, I appreciate the two of you for your replies as well 🙂
Great video! Informative, seems like joining your patreon is worth it!
The UK doesn't need a codified constitution, what is badly needed are entrenched laws that protect rights...laws whose provisions override those enacted by the ordinary legislative process, and which are deliberately difficult to create, amend or repeal (needing supermajorities in Parliament, or ratification by referendum, or both).
"Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
Well actually it goes from the queen to parliament
Despite a few notable exceptions (such as the 35 year ban on abortion) Ireland's been well-served by our codified constitution since the 1930s. Our constitution makes the people sovereign, meaning all laws passed by the legislature have to be in line with the constitutional rights of the people and the people can amend the constitution through popular vote (we're now 38 amendments down). Because of this, Ireland has always had to put EU treaties to popular vote before they could be brought in and has made same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Our constitution also sets out the roles and structures of each arm of the state and establishes our entire court system. Our constitution also gives the head of state (the Irish President) the power to refer bills from parliament to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality before signing the bills into law. Ireland's constitution also gives every person a variety of rights, from the right to work, a right to bodily integrity, a right to life and the state's protection, a right to found a family, a right to marry, a right to vote, etc. If the UK was to consider codifying its constitution, a much better starting point than the US constitution would be to look at the Irish constitution.
Yes! .... man, that was easy!
The greatest challenge to a codified Constitution is in updating it to modern times (as seen in the USA). If a hybrid could be defined that protected base rights, but allowed for fine details to be defined and redefined elsewhere would be best.
I'd say accountability and clarity would be great, but you would need to maintain flexibility somehow
It’s only as hard as ya make it
The thing is, in ireland we have a constitution, however it doesn't limit our goverments ability to pass new laws. If a constitutions is written right then the only laws it should limit have a direct impact on the rights of the people, such as censorship and other infringements on human rights. In the uk, online privacy is a huge problem with the conservitive goverment passing laws that let the police and intellegence agencys have unprecidented power in accsessing peoples private messages and internet activity. They even passed a law that required social media companies to lower the encryption of their private meesaging services e.g whatsapp. This was so that they could hack peoples messages easily and moniter what they do. Also they do not require a warrent to do this. The goverment said that this was to stop terrorism, however this is still a serious breach of privacy for the wider population. Those kinds of laws would not have been legal if the uk had a codified constitution that had the human right to privacy enshrined in it.
thats not a problem with an uncodified constitution, usa has a codified constitution and has the freedom act. Thats a problem with how your human rights can be trampled on if its for "national security"
The entire idea behind the US Constitution, was to place the sovereignty in the hands of the public, and for the public to be represented in Congress by the House, which controls the purse and the creation of legislation. The Senators, at the time, were installed by the several state's legislatures to represent them, which was later changed to be selected by the public of each state.
The Bill of Rights, which is the appendix of the US Constitution, can be changed by a majority vote from the public from a majority of states (an amendment). It was by design, to keep lawmakers from easily changing the laws affecting human rights, which, quite frankly, is one of Britain's biggest problems.
In Britain, you would have to have the Monarch agree to give up their sovereignty to make this work. Either the Executive is the Monarch, or the PM.
If adaptability is difficult for a codified constitution then perhaps take a gander at Switzerland and their direct democracy which allows everyday people to change the constitution if they so please if enough signatures can firrst get a referendum on an amendment and then a majority then vote in favor of the amendment then it passes into the constitution. Mayby that could adress those issues.
Please make a video about the China/Australia/Hong-Kong situation🙏
What situation?
Daniel Bazinga That’s why we need a video
The background music in this and other recent videos is distracting, monotonous, obnoxious, and unneccessary!
Given how many of our friends across the pond greatly abuse that 2nd Amendment and the President seems to be wilfully misrepresenting the 1st Amendment, I don't think it would help us in the slightest.
Codified constitutions are different around the globe. The last time I checked the UK didn't have a fundamental right to bear arms... That's a way to derail the conversation.
The rights given in a constitution are fundamental rights (which doesn't mean they can't be limited) so they can't be "abused".
You can criticizes the use of arms in the protests but from my laymen perspective they haven't abused the 2nd Amendment (This doesn't necessarily mean their behaviour was lawful..Again I'm not a lawyer!).
Free speech is not a right to defamation or the incitement of the masses at least in the constitution of my country.
What you put in your constitution and what limits you set for branches of government and the people is entirely up to you.
I think a time when a new "emergency" Act has just been rushed through Parliament without opposition and making sweeping changes to civil rights is not a good time to be tinkering with the Constitution.
It's SERIES not season. Were not American!
I wonder in who's opinion UK is "one of the most democratic"? In reality, UK's, voting system means that House of Commons, does very poor job of reflecting the will of the people. So UK as a whole is not very democratic. There are many much more democratic voting sustems, that would make UK actual democracy :)
English people always thing of England as being Da Bestest and Da Brightest and Da Biggest. Even challanging such beliefs, let alone pointing out how they do not reflect reality, is met with instant scorn.
I would worry if we had a codified constitution. The US constitution is outdated in some respects and has enforced outdated values on a new generation because people hold onto the constitution for dear life, eg: the 2nd amendment which hasn't been updated to meet the current needs of the American people.
thats a reason to have it in my opinion. that rights cant be removed from an individual because it falls out of popular favour. meny criminal cases could go easier if the got rid of the 4th or 5th amendment.
Best write the bits where it says United Kingdom in pencil.
More like dis united.
My argument against a codified constitution is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. It's something that is causing huge problems in the US right now and it probably made perfect sense to add it in when it was, but because it's been added, it's almost impossible to remove it whether it makes sense to keep it or not.
I don't know what our version of the Second Amendment would be, but I can almost guarantee that we'd add something that makes sense now and learn in 200-300 years that it's causing problems. We'd be stuck with it.
This video touched on that and had the conclusion that I usually reach: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
to me its a argument for a codified constitution. (whether you like guns or not). that rights cant be removed because they fall out of popular favour. that freedom of speech and freedom of the press apply to the internet and not just ink and paper.
While the overall video was superb, well thought out and entertaining, there were multiple cases where the audio cut abruptly. This, unfortunately, detracts the enjoyability of the video and gave the impression of lower standards being accepted compared to your other content. I hope this is either fixed for those that paid or doesn't appear in the remaining videos in the series.
It would just take so much effort and create so many problems, so because the flexibility is often beneficial, it's just not worth it; we have more important issues right now.
By the way, you should create the pros and cons videos beforehand because this video almost made me change my mind. Then, when you do the survey, repeat the pros and cons to some extent and go into more depth about the statistics.
There is no question about it
As an American, this is a no brainer... all of the problems described could be fixed by actually addressing it explicitly, and leaving parts vaguer where necessary and just copy an American tradition, where it just says Congress shall legislate this issue... eventually...
When it comes to laws there is a very simple system. If you have a written law, it has loopholes. If you say those loopholes are fixed by implying that the important part is the spirit and not the wording, then you don't have any written laws at all, only unspoken ones.
Whilst an unwritten constitution provides no solid line for the government to stop at, in reality this means they stop far shorter than this line, as even going near the fuzzy border of "is this legal" results in a loss of confidence, and if severe enough, public disobedience. This is an inbuilt element of our laws, that one is not required to stick to the wording of it, but the spirit of it, one cannot get away with the excuse of "technically its not illegal.". In a similar vein through the quirk of jury nullification it provides us with the ability to pardon those who have broken the word of the law but stuck to the spirit of it.
Relying on the public, a living breathing democratic body, rather than the judiciary to hold our politicians to account provides a more stable and tolerant society, for the betterment of all.
A democracy is only as good as how well informed and engaged people r.
The video starts at 0:59
I think I originally voted for a codified constitution. But after watching this I change my mind.
Perhaps a new poll on these topics to see if opinions have changed?
I think a written constitution would be great however I'm sure government and police would choose to out right ignore it when it suites.
That’s what the Courts are there for! They apply the constitution to the government and hold it to account.
I worry that a constitution would lead to a dogmatic following of imperfect rules made by imperfect people, removing the ability to have any debate
I see no reason y amendments can not be debated.
Completely overlooked the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
Seems pretty unbalanced tbh, the pros of not codifying presented are not inherent but situational.
All depends on who writes this codified constitution, I would not want Borris Johnson, for example, outlining the fundamental principles...
On the other hand it would be better not have Boris free to trample on our laws and traditional governance. Again.
The music is very repetitive and annoying, and there are multiple audio glitches throughout this video. Also I fail to see the difference between your second and third questions, "more transparent" vs. "clearer" these are literally synonymous.
That said, while I do think a written constitution would be beneficial to our country, I also agree that (because of such long standing traditions) the only reason one would ever get properly implemented is if we got invaded, if there was a revolution, or if our current government so completely failed the British public and failed to uphold or abuse the standards to such a degree that a new party was elected with making a written constitution as one of its main objectives. So all in all, very unlikely...
@TLDR News
Friendly criticism,
I haven't found this opinionated series as good as the first,
I think you should include your data statistics throughout the video rather than just giving our opinions on the subject at the end of the video!
It would be good to provide our ideas and opinions alongside the explanations and theories of the story.
Thanks for the content, keep going!
When did Canada have our revolution/complete collapse to lead to our written constitution?
Yes.
I picked that up too .
And Australia.
Canada didn't have its own Constitution till 1982 (without a war etc). Prior to that we relied alot on UK/London to "approve" our laws (BNA). Interesting fact, is was our current PM"s father, who brought it back to Canada in 1982. If you want you can photo copy our Canadian Constitution and start there? 😀. As it was based much on our UK/British roots and UK parliamentary system, plus other modern additions such as First Nations. It also includes House of Commons, House of Lords ( our Senate) and Governor general (the Queen's representative). Good luck 👍. Don't ask how we got it past Quebec, that's a long and twisted story😔
PS love your videos ❣️
0:24 : Repeat after me "nuCLEar", not "nucelar"
What a load of english BS... I think you should research more than the US constitution to base your opinions, and probably even research that one in specific a bit more. And by the way, A government with a minority of the votes, having a super majority in Parliament does not equate to a democracy.
A codified constitution isn't perfect, but it's been working for us for 231 years. It's a good foundation to build your house on. The only hang up for y'all would be where to put a hereditary ruling class into this mix, i.e. the house of lords, I gather they wouldn't take it too kindly and go out of their way to quash it.
The idea of a codified constitution would be, dare I say, revolutionary.
I think it’s pretty clear that a written constitution is needed but obviously codifying all the conventions will be a challenging task.
Well just the important ones. We could probs simplify the gov though.
I love the idea of a constitution in concept, but I don't trust our current parliament to write it.
Are you shitting me ? Why would your mo's want to limit their powers ?
Chronicles of Callum, you just perfectly explained why we shouldn't have a codified constitution.
Well we need to fix our parliament first then.
It seems easy to just have a skeleton constitution AND set of regulations outlining how it can be enforced & operated.
So the constitution becomes something that just helps interpretation of governance, but having articles of association can be amended and adjusted.
I think that we absolutely should, especially abolishing official powers of the monarchy and reforming the electoral system. But we must be careful that it's worded such as not to be worshipped as infallible hundreds of years later when conditions have changed.
Edit: Didn't realise they meant just compiling documents rather than making anything based on modern ideas
Well compiling it will give us a chance for the UK to update itself.
I would recommend having a look at the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It is a Constitution which clearly sets out separation of powers (trias politica), and accountability measures. It includes a fully justiciable Bill of Rights, which goes far beyond many other country's constitutions as it not only guarantees civil and political rights, but also socio-economic rights such as housing, education, healthcare, etc.. It includes institutions that are there to support and grow constitutionalism; institutions such as the Public Protector which may investigate any matter, be it mero moto, or otherwise. In South African constitutionalism, no single arm of government is superior, rather the Constitution itself is supreme. As such, all laws, executive action, exercise of power, etc., (including court rulings) must comply with the provisions set out in the Constitution. Even Parliament is subject to the Constitution.
tbh I'm not a fan of the new layout in Series2.
The short background-music loop, also its too high volume and the frequently deep wooshs are rather distracting and make it difficult to follow.
Keep it clear and don't overdo it with effects.
I like the rather unspectacular und direct way of news presenting you usually deploy.
I don’t think we should, it ties the future politician to present values, stalls much-needed amendment et cetera.
Fundamental concerns such as freedom of expression transcend generations. These things are in desperate need of such protections.
REMAIN UNCODIFIED
The USA offers some great examples of why codifying sucks.
- Uncodified is realistic about complexity: the electorate has free open access to their rights but it's not pretending to be simple; the US 2nd amendment has become controversial as views on personal weapons has changed but it's simplicity means ordinary citizens become excessively politicised.
- Uncodified balances politicisation: ordinary citizens are free to get as political as they wish if they want to get into the weeds; in the US the perceived simplicity causes these oversimplified debates and ideas to proliferate so readily they're almost forced on ordinary citizens requiring them to choose a side when they just want to go about their business.
- Uncodified makes the constitution serve the people: everyone agrees refining, adjusting, making more fair for today's citizens is the goal (disagree about the method if you want); the US are stuck arguing over what way is appropriate to interpret a constitution that's very hard to amend landing in a deadlock of how best to bow down to the constitution.
- Uncodified is a more perfect tension between governing branches: if it's all negotiable between executive, legislative and judiciary then the system can adjust better to problems: the US pretends these branches are perfectly separate and balanced while the executive and legislative are actually in a constant tug-of-war with each party trying to recruit the judiciary.
- Uncodified keeps power slightly more intangible: the US have rules that will never change because it requires those in power to give up power (e.g. a more non-partisan way for a judge to be appointed would be by a committee of peers but no president will give up that power, presidential executive power in general seems too great if the hype can be believed but there's too much codified and it would require a president to volunteer to have less power).
Canada can easily be a model for the UK when it comes to a clear written constitution. It defines the powers of the Governor General (The Monarch), The Prime Minister and their Cabinet (Executive), The Supreme Court (Judicial) and the Senate and the HoC (Legislature). And when amending the constitution it’s up to the house to have a majority of votes and for all 10 provinces and 3 territories to ratify the amendment. Which the UK should do too. It’s tough to get done granted, it took a time for our government to create the constitution and a lot of concessions had to be made. But it’s worth it in the end.
The music is a problem in this video. Also a problem, how you’ve cut and put together your recorded audio, it’s a little ragged.
It would make reform easier but the main element must be some form of proportionate representation, the two party system has had it easy for too long!
So true. If we had proportionate representation then people can vote the way they want without worrying about spliting the vote.
At 2:25 don’t forget the Scotland Act 1998 - a constitutional statute
I presume that people who have chosen the answer correctly have searched online before answering. Doing the same survey without having the ability to search elsewhere for the answer to the first question, the results would have been significantly different.