2007-02-22 02:48:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Luckily we have signed up to to European constitution on Human Rights, so we have certain safeguards against civil rights abuses.
However, as we have found out with Tony Blair and his henchmen, it might be a good idea for legislation to ensure that government remembers who is in charge...they work for us.
2007-02-22 02:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by DanRSN 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there should be a written constitution. The rights and responsibilities of the government and ministers and especially the limitations on their power, should be enshrined in a legal document.
The terms of elections should be fixed and these too should be laid down.
How much easier it would be to bring an errant PM or other Minister to book if you could show evidence that they had infringed written laws, as in the US?
The nearest England has to a written constitution is Magna Carta which the Nobles forced King John to sign in 1215 and it is high time there was an updated version of this (though I hope its passage will be more peaceful than the original over which the country teetered on the brink of civil war).
2007-02-22 03:04:52 · answer #2 · answered by squeaky guinea pig 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i don't believe we should as having an uncodified constitution allows the England, not the UK, to have a flexible system. Remember not the UK, as Scotland and Northern Island and have their own well established Assemblies, much like Wales is still establishing theirs.
2007-02-22 03:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by ghettodude2007 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the constitution of the UK is written, and part of it is unwritten. I can't see any reason why the unwritten part should be written down. It would probably require drastic change and may not even be worth the trouble, or it may be impossible to change.
2007-02-22 02:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by Thegrip 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It appears, from the other side of the pond, that the UK has done reasonably well without one, and attemping to reduce British practice to writing is likely to be an arduous task, without much likelihood of significant gain. Unless some significant reason should be alleged for making a change, I do not see much point in it.
2007-02-22 03:02:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. They get along fine without one. They even have the courts rule on laws, which is technically impossible in a Democracy.
2007-02-22 02:57:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we don't need one. We know our rights and they are protected by law.
Although I agree with DanRSN - that Tony and his Cronies need to be kept in line and reminded that the people are not to be ignored and we DO have a voice that should be listened to! They seem to be forgetting this.
2007-02-23 02:57:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, thank you. We have existed reasonably happily for a thousand years without one, and "if it ain't broke, don't mend it".
It is probably trendy to think we should have one, but,why? Our system works, heaven knows how, but it does, so be proud of it.
2007-02-22 04:04:06 · answer #8 · answered by ALAN B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it's a national disgrace that we haven't got one.
2007-02-22 03:01:29 · answer #9 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋