English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As I am sure you are aware, Britain is pretty much the only developed nation on Earth without a single document classed as a constitution which would give a clear indication to the public of what there rights are. I think that with the government making constant efforts to erode cival liberties ad freedoms we could use something which would limit how far the government could go! Your views?

2006-08-11 12:46:39 · 12 answers · asked by BlackCountryBob 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

With an uncodified constitution, as in Britain, one's rights are assumed to be whatever is enshrined in law (civil), whatever does not break a law (criminal), and that which has no law applied to it (either civil or criminal).
Whether there is a codified constitution or not, a government will find a way of introducing measures in order to maintain what it decrees is a 'safe' society.

2006-08-11 13:16:29 · answer #1 · answered by Sun is Shining ❂ 7 · 0 1

Britain DOES have a written structure, in spite of the undeniable fact that that is not contained in a unmarried record, and incorporates hardship-free regulation, Statues, Precedents, and judgements. Britain, hence has a extra versatile and functional attitude to replacing Constitutional practices than those States which have a unmarried codified record, hedged about with regulations on featuring amendments.

2016-11-29 22:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Really, every state has a constitution, whether gathered in a single document or not.

In terms of a specified set of civil liberties, the closest single document is probably the Human Rights Act.


The nature of government is that as legislator, it always has power to repeal and replace any law.

In pracitce this is only relevant if the government retains power to enforce those laws, and the extent to which they go will be shaped by political demands, including public opinion.

However, I think the strength of character of the state's civilians is more important than the structure of constitutional documentation in levelling political pressure on a government.

2006-08-11 12:55:26 · answer #3 · answered by Wax Crayon 4 · 0 1

I personaly think that Britain has a much better government than most! In light of the last 24 hrs.! Who in this world can *****!
Yes I am a US citizen of british decent!
ANd very proud of it!!!!!!

2006-08-11 12:55:30 · answer #4 · answered by suequek 5 · 0 1

No. We don't need one.

In Britain we can do whatever we want provided there is not a law that says we can't do it.

2006-08-11 13:26:16 · answer #5 · answered by citizen 2 · 0 0

no britain is run by the queen not by the people for the people blah blah blah yeah so no britain doesn't need one if you are concern take action

2006-08-11 12:51:28 · answer #6 · answered by Jesehn 2 · 1 0

Our politicians have for hundreds of years just been too lazy to write one.

2006-08-11 13:07:33 · answer #7 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 0 0

england has had an unwritten constitution that serves them fine for years... I don't see any reason to change it

2006-08-11 12:51:51 · answer #8 · answered by mojopez 4 · 0 1

Have you not heard of the Magna Carta?

2006-08-11 12:52:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Your an idiot! Read a history book.

2006-08-11 13:07:32 · answer #10 · answered by Rob G 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers