Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Neaten up the article in general

I propose reorganising this section majorly. This is to benefit the peoplewho are learning about the constitution anew or comparing it to other constitutions. Alot of these concepts are established within the area of Constitution Studies...

• Defining Features
  • Written and Unwritten
  • Rigid and Flexible
  • Bold text(Supreme and Subordinate)
  • Federal and Unitary
  • Separated and fused Powers
  • Republican and Monarchical
• Sources
  • Summary List
• Key Principles
  • Rule of Law
  • Parliamentary Soverignty
  • Seperation of Powers
  • European Affairs
  • Others
• Disputes / Criticism
• Recent Constitutional Reform

Alot of info is in the article but is aranged in an ad hoc way. The written/codified/unwritten is mentioned in four sections. Alot of the other sections are covered ('flexibility and rigidity' and 'fused powers' are already sectioned). The key principles section is particularly difficult to understand and neglects the 'seperation of powers'. Are there any objections or other suggestions here? Bamkin 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Statutes

Haven't changed anything, but think someone perhaps should: Consider...

At the Metric Martyr's prosecution (18th February 2002 at the Royal Courts of Justice), Lord Justice Laws ruled that certain statutes were ‘constitutional statutes’ and therefore incapable of implied repeal.. That is, they can only be repealed expressly; by specific mention in the body of a subsequent statute. The conviction relied on the fact that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 did not repeal any part of the European Community Act 1972, in spite of the later act allowing the use of imperial measures, which the EU later banned with measures made valid via the earlier one.

This is at odds with the opening paragraph "There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered 'constitutional law.' Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish any written or unwritten element of the constitution."

1 Because the above ruled that there is a technical difference. Part of the judgement defined certain other 'constitutional statutes; the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.

2 Because they can't "perform constitutional reform SIMPLY by passing Acts of Parliament". The acts must be very specifically worded or they have no authority over the constitutional statute; not a simple thing at all. Graldensblud 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection to "unwritten"

The point about the UK constitution is that, firstly, there is no concept of entrenching at least domestic rules of law. This is the principle way in which it is contrasted with the constitution of (say) the United States. The second distinctive point is that there is a soft grading of constitutionality. Rules of law may be treated as of more or less constitutional importance by Parliament and the Courts. It would be impossible to precisely categorise in that way (despite Thoburn and Laws LJ, but that is another matter).

The problem is that the UK constitution is no more "unwritten" than any other constitution, just as the common law is no more unwritten than any other system of law. This is a mistake made by a lot of lay people and those unfamiliar with our system of law, who think equate "written law" with "legislation" and it isn't.

All significant constitutional conventions, just like all important principles of common law, are written down. Much Parliamentary practice is (for example) in Erskine May. A simple legal example (to illustrate the point) -- what is the definition of murder in English law? Answer (with some statutory modification) is that a passage from Coke's Institutes is cited in court. That is a written definition of a common law rule.

I am strongly of the view that the article should be changed to reflect this. The important point is no entrenchment and a fuzzy concept of administrative law, not whether something has been written or not. That is a bogus Roman law dichotomy which worked no better for them than it does for us. Francis Davey 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vernon Bogdanor makes the same distinction: pretty much all of the UK's constitution is written down (and if it is not written down in a way that is more or less legally enforceable way - in a statute or a higher court decision - then much is written about it - for example, as you say, Erskine May will give you chapter and verse on Parliamentary practices and conventions): the real point is that the UK's constitution is not codified, in the sense of being brought together into a single document. Rather, there is a rather pragmatic hodge-podge of bits and pieces all over the place.

It is worth noting that A-level Government & Politics teaches the British Constitution as an unwritten or uncodified set of sources and the Constitution of the United States as a written and codified document. Andy Heywood was the cheif examiner at the time I was studying in 2002 and writer of many of the books that are used as revision materials when revising and he too spoke of both constitutions in the same way. --Pudduh 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the A-level Government & Politics course, or Andy Heywood, is teaching people that the UK Consitution is unwritten, it and he are wrong. Uncodified. This is very important because, for instance, otherwise you will keep hearing people calling for a written Bill of Rights, as if that might actually do something. What they mean is codification, which is a very good excuse to faff about and change nothing but pretend that you are. Wikidea 13:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomatter whether you use the term unwritten or uncodified it means the same thing. Most academics and judges use unwritten (meaning unwritten in a single document). I think that noting that the constitution has this quality should be confined to just one section though. And reference, nomatter what a person's personal opinion is. Then we might get some discouse that follows the guideline. "It is said to be unwritten...but So-and-so argues the other way" - much better. Bamkin 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It matters greatly whether it says unwritten or uncodified. Unwritten is wrong, and uncodified is correct! The constitution is written in loads of places. We've got more writing than everyone. We're number one at writing in constitutions. Top dog. Big cheese. Writing everywhere. Any good public law text, e.g. Bradley and Ewing's Constitutional and Administrative Law, p.1 - will say this. Wikidea 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Great! Could you provide some examples of these writings. 93.138.21.110 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That was really my point. I hadn't read Bogdanor on the subject, is he worth reading? Its worth saying that the United States doesn't have a codified constitution in the modern sense. The document that is referred to as the constitution does not cover some important elements of the constitution (understood in the usual sense) - for example see Marbury v Madison. In some sense very few states have properly codified constitutions since constitutional courts have a way of developing their own jurisprudence which is important but often not part of the code -- the Conseil d'Etat being a classic example, the European Court of Justice a more recent one. The nice point is that the UK's constitution is far less well codified (on a spectrum) than most others -- in other words its shades of gray. That is the headline point I'd like to see. Francis Davey 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dicey's doctrine of parliamentary supremacy does not allow much scope for entrenchment, even for non-UK law (we could leave EC law behind by leaving the EC), but it will be interesting to see how the UK Supreme Court judges approach things once they are no longer members of the House of Lords... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are ways law could be entrenched -- but nevertheless that's another important point that sets the UK apart from many other states. Francis Davey 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I think British Constitution is a better location - the Constitution is informal, and a more informal title makes more sense. john 23:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I moved the article mostly for consistancy with other politics articles - most of the other use United Kingdom not Britain. Deus Ex 23:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

British is the adjective which refers to the United Kingdom. john 23:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Increasingly though, UK or United Kingdom is used an adjective too, mainly because British can refer to of Great Britain or of British Isles and UK/United Kingdom as an adjective is less controversial. Anyway the main reason was because most of the other politics articles use United Kingdom in the title, not Britain or British. Deus Ex 18:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Its also worth pointing out that "British" might well refer to the British Isles, of which the United Kingdom is just a part.

Indeed, British suggests a confusion with Great Britain, which is a smaller entity. The state (from an international perspective) is the United Kingdom. The UK constitutional law article has more substance so a merger into it from any extra material in British followed by a suitable redirect seemt the best plan to me. Francis Davey 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Act of Union 1801

Re: Act of Union 1801...while the Union happened in 1801, wasn't the act passed in 1800, since it went into effect January 1, 1801? john 00:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

From searching the HMSO website, it would appear that it was indeed 1800. I was only changing the link because that's where the article on it is. (Incidentally, they seem to be called the "Union with England Act 1707", "Union with Scotland Act 1707" and "Union with Ireland Act 1800" [I can't find the Irish 1800 one, but I assume it was the "Union with Great Britain Act 1800"]). Proteus (Talk) 10:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

List of key Acts

"Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975". Is this really considered part of the constitution? DJ Clayworth 18:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, this was left over from someone's botched text move; before the move, it was made clear that this was a list of Acts considered by the Joint Committee looking at the Civil Contingencies Bill as unsuitable to be able to be waived by decree of a SoS.

I've now moved the list to where the comment about the CCB was taken. Sorry about my rollback-ing you, BTW. I hadn't noticed that the page had been borked.

James F. (talk) 00:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the UK not have a constitution?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the UK had no constitution, as a constitution is a single written legal document describing the primary nature of a nation's government and laws? Proto 13:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget the discussion of dictionary definitions. "Constitution" just means whatever "constitutes" the body of laws governing the country/international organisation, etc. Wikidea 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. ;-)

From the OED:

constitution, n.

[...]

7. The system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, or body politic is constituted and governed. This may be embodied in successive concessions on the part of the sovereign power, implied in long accepted statutes, or established gradually by precedent, as in the British Constitution; or it may be formally set forth in a document framed and adopted on a particular occasion by the various orders or members of the commonwealth, or their representatives, as in the Constitution of the United States, the various Constitutions of France after 1790, and those of other nations, framed in imitation of these.

In the case of a written Constitution, the name is sometimes applied to the document embodying it. In either case it is assumed or specifically provided that the constitution is more fundamental than any particular law, and contains the principles with which all legislation must be in harmony.

This sense gradually arose out of the prec. between 1689 and 1789: see the early quots.

1689 Declar. Estates of Scotl. 11 Apr., Whereas King James the Seventh..did by the advice of wicked and evil counsellers invade the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotick power.]

1735-8 BOLINGBROKE On Parties 108 By Constitution We mean, whenever We speak with Propriety and Exactness, that Assemblage of Laws, Institutions and Customs, derived from certain fix'd Principles of Reason..that compose the general System, according to which the Community hath agreed to be govern'd.

1750 CHESTERFIELD Lett. (1774) III. 2 England is now the only monarchy in the world that can properly be said to have a constitution.

1789 Constit. U.S. Preamb., We..do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[...]

... which is quite clear, I feel.

James F. (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. People often say the UK has no constitution when what they mean is: it has no codified constitution. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it's something I didn't know much about (*ashamed*) ... now I do! Proto 14:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that people dont understand this is a reason the there should not be merged - this article should be about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and how it has evolved with the nation from absolute monarchy to social democracy. The constitution is seperate from the laws it produces. --Ehouk1 14:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the UK doesn't have a constitution. This is because there's no distinction, and no formal way of distinguishing, between laws with constitutional importance and normal laws. Parliament can amend them just the same. So effectively, the UK has no constitution. Rowan 26 Jan 2005

I agree with Rowan. The UK has no constitution. This is really silly "we have a constitution, just no document, and no entrenchment, and parliament can do whatever it wants." That is the same as no consitution, just a parliamentry system. There should be a section that summarizes the argument that the UK has no consitution. I really can't imagine there isn't an article somewhere that could be referenced and appropriately sourced. Sandwich Eater 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, do you have any basis for asserting this? "Constitution" is a well respected and much used term in both political theory and in public law. In both disciplines, it is commonplace to say that the UK has a constitution. There is no academic argument that I am aware of (and I work in this field) that the UK has no constitution. What do you mean by a constitution? Why chose that definition? We have a department of constitutional affairs that deals with our constitution. No-one seriously doubts this. Some years ago I heard a talk by Sandra Day O'Connor, then US Supreme Court justice, comparing the US and UK constitutions. It was attended by a large number of specialists in the field. No-one suggested that the UK didn't have a constitution.

By the way your edit rather reads like an attempt to argue the issues, which you should do here not on the main page. Dicey will not help you -- he was happy with the notion that the UK did have a constitution. Whether there are limits on the UK Parliament is a tricky question and may differ between English and Scottish law, for instance, so please don't make assumptions about the whole state by extrapolating what you know about one (England and Wales). The fact that we have a constitution in which Parliament is supreme doesn't mean we don't have a constitution at all. The fact you think it is "just silly" may be because you haven't really thought about what a constitution is, or know what one is. Fine, but don't assume that wikipedia needs to reflect that ignorance. Francis Davey 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All I did on the main page was move a block of text to a new section. I added very little text. I cannot believe that there has never been any scholar to question the idea that an unlimited parliament could claim to have an unwritten constitution to limit it.

Here's one from a quick yahoo search, though it isn't authoritative enough for a good citation:

http://experts.about.com/q/Britain-350/UK-Constitution.htm. So political scientists have defined a constitution very loosely.

Here is a dictionary definition of constitution:

"The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

Since the parliament has no limits I'd say it has no constitution. Everything I read seems to suggest "Well, if they did this there would be a backlash because of X", where X is the rule of law, tradition, the freedom-loving nature of the people et cetera. Seems to me that history is rife with X not working to curtail governments in the past.

Anyway, enough of my opinions. I will take up your challenge of finding a citation.Sandwich Eater 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The government and Parliament aren't the same thing. Even the current government - who maintain a strong party discipline and have a comfortable majority in the commons - can't ignore Parliament. The quotation you give talks about something that prescribes the nature... of a government or another institution. There are many constitutional limits on the behaviour of government and other institutions. There may be limits on what Parliament can do in Scotland (its not my area of practice) but they may not be justiciable - which is another matter. No-one is suggesting that the English Parliament is limited by some justiciable constitutional law of any kind. That doesn't mean that England is an anarchy - there is a constitution. You may have misunderstood what a constitution is - that's what the article is for. Hopefully others will comment. Francis Davey 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us re-examine that definition:

"The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

In particular the last part of this sentance:

"..limits of a government or another institution."

The Bill of Rights, which was a result from the Glorius Revolution of 1688, stipulates precisely the concept that Parliament is sovereign. This is an express limit and check on the position of the Crown, a vital institution of government and thus, under that dictionary definition counts as part of a fundemental part of the statute.

This is part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom and thus, under that dictionary definition, the United Kingdom does have a Constitution.

If this example does not satisfy you, that is but a mere tip of an 800 year old iceberg.--Pudduh 12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the dictionary-definition doesn't resemble usage, then the definition is wrong. People see a constitution as a written base-law which trumps all others and which is hard, if not impossible, to amend. England has no such document. On the contrary, parliament is sovereign rather than the constitution. It's not enough to say that England "effectively" has no constitution. It has none, no more than it has a president or a border with Peru.

To contradict myself above (!), there is a view that certain European Union documents trump all British base-law and are de facto the UK's constitution.

I must ask whether the person who sees a constitution as 'a written base-law which trumps all others and which is hard, if not impossible, to amend' is American. This is because most Americans do define a constitution like this, but only becuase the only constitution of which they have any knowledge is their own and does fit the definition. However, I know of no-one who has studied politics and would say that Britain has no constitution. I apologise if the person in question isn't american. 172.141.130.245 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase the great Samuel Goldwyn: "The British Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on!" 86.132.105.90 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

British Constitutionalism

I disagree that there is a lack concept of British constitutionalism as stated by the article. I agree that a name change is in order, because the title implies a single document exists. --Dlatimer 02:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not it doesn't, unless the reader doesn't know what a "constitution" is, all the more reason to keep the article "as is". It describes (not at all badly) the constitution of a state -- the United Kingdom. An significant feature is that the UK has no traditional distinction between grades of law. ALthough Laws LJ has explored the idea of "constitutional acts" in Thoburn, there is no indication that anyone else will take the slightest bit of notice.

Can you expand on "I disagree....article" I don't see that there myself. Francis Davey 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't!

British Constitutional Law and the UK Constitution are entirely different subjects! In the LSE library, for example, there are two entirely different sections for each of them. The UK constitution should continue to have its own article.

Civil Contingencies Bill

The article "Civil Contingencies Bill" redirects here, which is understandable as the subject does deal with constitutional issues. However, there's no mention of said bill in this article.

I suggest either a mention is added here for anyone researching the bill, or the redirection is removed and an article on the bill itself created. Unfortunately, as I came here to research the bill which I know little about, I don't feel qualified to write such an article myself. JulesH 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed; it should have redirected to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and now it does.

James F. (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

British v English v Scottish

I must object to the terms of this discussion, on the grounds that English and Scottish constitutional law may be distinguished; for example, a prerogative power may exist in Scotland, but not in England, or vice-versa (Consider the preliminary statements about the identity of Scottish and English law in the case before the House in Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate (1965)). - An objector.

BBC linking this article

This article has been linked from the BBC website [1]--Doc ^ask? 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is somewhat biased in favour of UK

To say the US Constitution is rigid is untrue; it makes it sound like it is defacto law. In fact, the US Constitution is not rigid at all, it can be, and has been, changed many times through amendments, and there are several. It is just that it is more difficult to change the US Constitution, as it must be done by a super majority of the house and senate and 2/3's of the 50 states. This was done to ensure it is the absolute will of the people that they want an amendment made.

Biased in favour of the UK? The article is about the UK... Im sure there is an article on the US constitution you can contribute to.Celticbattlepants 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The more rigid entrenched nature of the US constitution over that of the UK is often quoted as an advantage of the US constition!BaseTurnComplete 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just browsing in passing. Thought I'd add a note that should be clear enough anyway, but for the avoidance of doubt of any others surfing here... Any US constitutional 'advantages' (which presumably means to have a benefit to the society under the relevant constitution) would have to be clearly set out and explained. There are significant elements of the US constitution (viz-a-viz the British arrangements) which can and are cited to be 'disadvantages'.--Phillip Fung 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of reading it the other way up. The article currently seems to have a slight slant towards the view that this system is disdvantageous, and I keep going "but where's the up-side?" I suspect it depends on your own PoV. --81.174.244.104 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with the previous comment. Underlying some parts of the article seems to be the assumption that having a codified constitution, after the style of the United States, provides an inherently superior system, and that the disadvantages of the UK's position somehow need to be made clear. A great deal, for example, is made of the "theory" that Parliament has the legislative power to do whatever it likes. This, of course, is an horrific misrepresentation of the actual situation. For one thing, it completely ignores the historical background to the system – primarily to curb the monarch's power – and ignores the reality that no sane MP would attempt such a thing because of the political backlash which would ensue. In line with previous comments, it is simply an unwarranted assumption to suggest that UK citizens are somehow toiling under the pressure of a bad system of government; it is one which has evolved over many centuries, and, I think, entrenched (unfortunate word?) is a strong sense of how things are and aren't done. To appeal to theoretical technicalities seems to misunderstand how the UK's particular flavour of government operates.--Walafrid 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not ridged, perhaps but certainly inflexible. According to Dicey’s definition of the terms a flexible Constitution is "one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body". Is that true of the US Constitution? …It isn’t by the way. --Tyrfing 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Written Constitution

Surely it is incorrect to say that the British constitution is unwritten? It is, in fact, almost, if not all, written down somewhere. Some, as has been said in the article, is a part of statue law, which is clearly written. This 'written' issue is chiefly about constitutional conventions. Walter Bagehot was one of those who wrote about the constitution. Many text books write about constitutional conventions. In fact, I would be willing to wager that all that could reasonably be said to be constitutional in a British constitutional sense is actually written somewhere in a book or document that is regarded as being a serious work. What is true is that none of this written evidence outside of statue law has much in the way of legal standing. If this article is to be clear about the British constitution then some rewriting should be done to remove the written/unwritten issue, and clarify it that only some of the constitution has formal legal standing whilst other parts does not. It might be more concise to say "unwritten", but it is not true.--Phillip Fung 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a point I made above. The written/unwritten dichotomy (said of law) is Roman in origin and was as useless then as now. Francis Davey 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Efforts to Create a Written Constitution

I thought it might be a nice addition to the article to capture some of the discussion around creating a written constitution in the UK (eg Lord Scarman et al) and his fears that the less concise Constution as it stands could be more open to catasrophe. An example of potential crisis that comes to mind would be the fears of the cold-war era prime ministor that Lord Mountbatten and the Royals were going to stage a coup and replace him, et cetera. Sandwich Eater 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thailand's 19 sept 2006 coup a month prior to a planned election is eerily remeniscent of the fears of the cold-war era prime-minister who feared coup leaders in the UK had tacit support from the royal family. Does Thailand have a written constitution? What impact does this have on the perceived stability of constitutional monarchies globally? Sandwich Eater 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt having a "written constitution" (whatever you mean by that) would make things any easier here. We have successfully avoided excesses of royal power for some time with a parliamentary democracy, when royal power was much more widespread and assumed. A coup by "Lord Mountbaten and the Royals" would have been unlawful in all kinds of ways, I'm not sure that having more laws to prevent it would help. Francis Davey 12:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. For some of the background to this, perhaps look at Edward III's reign, where the House of Commons challenged the king for the very first time. By that time, it had become the Common's prerogative to grant taxes which the king demanded, an important bargaining tool against a monarch who seemed to be running amok with the country's money. --Walafrid 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For some I believe dictatorship of Parliament, not of the monarch, is an issue. The powers of Parliament are effectively unlimited, there being no written constitution to check and balance such power. Parliament can and has declared individuals outlawed without due process and suspended habeas corpus. It could declare that black is white if it so chose. It might be interested to source some material on this issue.Gazzster (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

Do soldiers in the UK swear allegiance to the crown or to the constitution? Sandwich Eater 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Members of the armed forces swear an oath to the Sovereign, because she is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Lapafrax 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The question assumes that the UK has a US-style document of Constitution, which is simply not the case. There is really no document to swear allegiance to. --Walafrid 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

actually british armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and his or her representative; meaning Parliament as one the uk's constitutional principles is that the monarch is a constituional monarch holding no real power but a ceromonial role

courts can review legislation???

It is stated in the article that UK legislation is subject to judicial review. Parliamentary Soverignty provides that the judiciary can never question statute. They may rule when two statutes are in direct conflict - this is different. Another user has already question the validity. I will remove if nobody (with an authoritive source) objects. Bamkin 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Bamkin 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The judicial review, I think, is of the exercise of power by a public authority under Parliamentary legislation. So in a way it's not incorrect to say that legislation is subject to judicial review - it is because they're reviewing what public authorities are allowed to do under the law, and then of course that's compared with whatever the authority has done and is usually being complained of. The result might be that the public authority's decision or action is upheld or that they must compensate the claimant or be compelled to take action. But yes, there's no scope for the judiciary overturning Parliamentary legislation. The most that they may do is "reinterpret" it under the Human Rights Act (which can go quite far) or say that it is incompatible and provide compensation. Parliament would then change it to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Is Parliamentary sovereignty affected? No, because Parliament passed the Human Rights Act. But it's a difficult area of legal theory and I think if this can be made clearer in the article it could help. Wikidea 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Judicial Review is review of discretionary powers exercised by Ministers, judicial review never questions the statute under which this power is 'given'. Judicial review ensures that statute is adhered to. If it is not, the statute remains intact although action maybe taken against the minister. I totally agree that in practice 'interpretation' can go quite far indeed. Bamkin 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

British courts can disallow an act of Parliament if it conflicts with European laws or treaties. In fact, they have been doing so since the late 1980s. EU law always has precedence over an ordinary act of Parliament unless Parliament explicitly makes a declaration to the contrary in the actual wording of the act. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

European Communities Act, does Parliament really have the right to repeal it on its own??

There is an argument that Parliament can't really repeal the European Act Unilaterally, since to withdraw from the EU requires the consent of all member states- (it's would basically require an ammendment to the Treaty of Rome- since the European Community and Union is Permanent, (unlike for example European Steel and Coal Community which was time limited I think?). Indeed the ditched EU Constitution in fact had a provision to allow unilateral withdrawal, and so that implies the power to withdraw doesn't exist. Granted at the moment this is a somewhat theoretical debate, since only Greenland so far has ever left the EC/EU, (and Greenland of course is part of Denmark- so only "a bit" of a country has ever left. So basically if you accept that to leave the EU lawfully requires an ammendment to the Treaties, an Act of Parliament purporting to Repeal the 1972 Communities Act would have no more validity than the legislation passed by say the Alabama Legislature to withdraw from the USA during the American Civil War era. Comments please from anyone who knows anything about this- (preferably a Law Lord or Member of the European Court of Justice, or both, but anyone who's thought about this question would be welcome). Comentate 23:38, 19 May 2007 (GMT)

If it was the will of the British Parliament to withdraw from the EU, I can't see how other member states could stop them from doing so. Legally in the UK no Parliament can forever bind a future Parliament so MPs and Lords assembled are free to repeal the 1972 Act if they so wished. From the EU's viewpoint, I don't accept the argument that because the unilateral exit clause is in the EU Constitution then it means it doesn't apply now, the Greenland example is the only one and I think it is the most likely course for withdrawal in the future (if that indeed ever happens again). Physically other member states are unlikely to try and force Britain to still be a member (re Alabama), and I doubt they would try.--Johnbull 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about Factortame- that case shows that a Parliament can bind a future one, (Merchant Shipping Act was ruled as "ultra vires" effectively), and it could be the courts would rule the same about a "European Communities Withdrawal Act". In this legal debate everyone seems stuck in thinking in terms of the English, (and by extension British) tradition of "Parliamentary Sovereignty", and that this sort of case would be decided by British Courts, if the case was looked at by the European Court of Justice, they will only be looking at the validity of the Act of Parliament in relation to the Treaties, and of course ECJ judges may pay less attention to concepts such as Parliamentary Sovereignty. I suppose it's get the treaties out time! Of course if every EU state ratified the Treaty to allow UK withdrawal, it wouldn't be an issue, but what if Estona say didn't pass the necessary legislation to ratify the treaty?

Although in practical terms I don't doubt that Johnbull has it pretty much right, I suspect little practical action would be taken to stop a withdrawal attempt, (which is it itself highly unlikely in my view). And obviously the main difference with the 1860s American comparison is there wouldn't be a military attempt to stop a withdrawal, (indeed all sorts of other non-EU treaty obligations would still exist between UK and most of it's EU former partners- e.g. NATO, European Convention of Human Rights etc). Where I do possibly differ from Johnbull is in terms of the constitutional theory. What could happen is that if the European Courts still consider the UK part of the EU, after it declared "UDI", UK citizens could still be considered EU citizens, or the EU may still not allow Duty Free liquor sales on Ferries between the UK and Ireland, so there could be all sorts of oddities. (Perhaps Rhodesia would be a better analogy than Alabama?) The EU may say, well we don't agree what you did was legal, but not do anything practical to stop but may do all sorts of things to make the point that we don't recognise the UK as having left the EU. Comentate 23:35, 20 May (GMT)

Whoever says that withdrawl from the EU needs consent from all members is not very well informed. In the Draft EU Constitution they wanted to make it clear that members could withdraw - this is typical of codifying documents, they change nothing, and wrongly imply that before - or rather now, any member state be it the UK, Estonia or Germany couldn't pull out. Some countries are bound in by their own constitutions, but that it neither here nor there from the point of view of EU law. The only question is do you think we should? If yes, vote UKIP in the general election (not the European election, because that won't do much good!!) If no, then talk about how the EU can be improved, or what sort of EU you'd like to see. Wikidea 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few (not contradictory) notes here. Firstly, under the constitution of the UK, treaties cannot be binding domestically unless enacted by parliament under statute.

Secondly it has been recognised in UK courts that the European Communities Act 1972 can be (expressl only) repealed, I quote Law LJ in the High Court in possibly the only time the matter was questioned judicially: "the Parliament of the United Kingdom retained the legal power to repeal the [European Communities] 1972 Act by express legislation", reported in Thoburn v Sunderland CC [2003] QB 151 at 181-182. Also see, albiet slightly more ambiguously, Factertame [1991] 1 All ER 70. Bamkin 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP Law

Assessed as B class. Very good article - probably ready or nearly ready for a GA nomination. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my ha'penny's worth, I think this is a terrible article, riven with inaccuracies, contradictions, inconsistencies and general irrelevancies, and would benefit from being re-written from scratch. It is, at present, some way even from the "B" grade which has been awarded, since that implies that the article has the "majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article", which is not the case here. A new article would contain some or all of the following elements: (1) the constitution (meaning, reasons for, historical considerations), (2) the characteristics of the constitution (unwritten, flexible, unitary government, constitutional monarchy, bicameral sovereign parliament, electoral system, ministerial responsibility, separation of powers, rule of law), (3) sources of constitutional law, (4) recent and possible future developments, and (5) criticisms. Ravenseft (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite lead paragraphs

The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law and convention under which the United Kingdom is governed.

Because the UK has no single codified documentary constitution along the lines of the Constitution of the United States, it is often said that the country has an "unwritten constitution". However, ...

I suggest a rewrite of the lead paragraphs in a way that you would like to see presented as a first impression - say what it is, not what it isn't. Perhaps, reference the US down in one of the sections, or create a subsection to mention it, if at all - it isn't important to the article's subject. And leave out the mention of an "unwritten constitution" or put it down in a section or subsection. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

In the Key Principles section it says that the European Communities Act 'supersedes' the Weights and Measures Act. Is superseded really the right word if it was in fact pre-existing?

In the 'important conventions' section it says that the monarch may draw the Prime Minister from the Lords. May s/he draw the Prime Minister from outside Parliament? (it says 'rather than... outside Parliament' before, but doesn't clarify afterwards)

LaFoiblesse (talk) 16:13, 02 June 2008 (GMT)

I've rewritten the section referring to the Weights and Measures Act - you were quite right to point out what was in fact a complete nonsense. The European Communities Act did not "supersede" the Weights and Measures Act, rather the ECA was not impliedly repealed simply by virtue of the fact that the W&MA contained a provision contrary to European law. The point of the case is that it remains for Parliament to expressly repeal the ECA (as with any other legislation), and the theory advanced by Laws LJ that certain Acts of Parliament enjoy a special constitutional status and are "entrenched" in the sense of being protected against implied repeal. As for the Monarch's choice of PM, it seems that modern practice requires the monarch to choose a person from the Commons; as indicated in Halsbury's: "[n]ominally the monarch is unfettered in the choice of her ministers, and may summon whom she pleases to fill the office of Prime Minister; nevertheless, owing to the dependence of the executive upon the support of the House of Commons, the monarch's choice, except in unusual cases, is in practice restricted to the person who seems most likely to have the support of a stable majority in the House of Commons, or, failing such a person, that politician who seems able to form an administration with a reasonable prospect of remaining in office." Lamberhurst (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Constitution

the ancient constitution redirects here yet there is no mention of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

does all or any of the consitution conventions be given laws statutory force?

i think that there is no reason to give consitution conventions laws statutory force because many of the conventions are stupid and about the sovergeinty § —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.147.16 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Role of Referendums

This is an excellent article but I would like to see some discussion in it about the evolving role of referendums in the UK. For example, the article says that technically Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, but at the time of establishing them it was said that the fact that a referendum had been held gave them extra legitimacy, making them more than just subsidiary to Westminster. If Westminster ever did try to abolish them would that provoke a constitutional crisis? There also seems to be an evolving convention that referendums have to be held on issues of major importance, such as membership of the Euro. Neelmack (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Established Church

It would be good if there was some discussion in this article on the role of the Church of England and Church of Scotland as established churches in the constitution. For example, what role exactly does the Prime Minister play in appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury, and what role does the Church have in the House of Lords. Will there be difficulties when Charles becomes king because his marriage is not recognised by the C of E? Some clarity of these issues here would add a lot to the article.Neelmack (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says his marriage isn't recognized by the C of E? The church changed its default doctrine on divorce some years ago, though individual clergy remain free to disagree. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland has never been an established church within the UK. The 1921 Act merely confirmed the CoS as not being an established church.--MBRZ48 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

constitutionality of the position of Leader of the Opposition

Or as the title properly is, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I suppose.....I'm hoping someone here can provide a citation or comment on the issue affecting this edit and related content, to whit that - as far as I know - the refusal of then-newly-installed Premier of British Columbia Gordon Campbell to recognize a Leader of the Opposition is a violation of the constitution; his rationale was that there were less than four seats so under BC law they were not an official party, therefore not a caucus, therefore not a proper Opposition (they'd governed the province for the previous ten years...and the Liberals themselves had only re-emerged from oblivion as a "nowhere party" at the start of that ten years...); given that Canadian parliamentary norms are derived from the British Constitution. The immediate upshot at the time was that the opposition party's leader was denied office space and the extra salary, but more than one columnist at the time raked Campbell for the low blow and some suggested it was unconstitutional in nature. The IP editor who made that edit references the 1897 Constitution Act, but not the British Columbia Act (of 1870/71) or the British North Americaq Act (1867) or the new Trudeau Constitution of 1982, nor the traditions and conventions of the British constitution. Even if it's not in printed law/legislation, isn't the appointment of a Leader of the Opposition a requirement; and I'd been under the impression that the LoO is even part of the Privy Council. When there was a "sweep" in New Brunswick, of all seats, the Premier in that case actually appointed a Leader of the Opposition from the citizenry, just so there would be one. Any comments or hopefully citations to back up what was taken out in that edit would be greatly appreciated; please reply on my talkpage, this one's not on my watchlist.Skookum1 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

UK Constitution and the EU

The discussion about whether or not Parliament can, or can not repeal EU law was interesting.

I don't think they have to. The EU is illegitimate; Parliament did not have the authority to sign us (the UK) up to such a thing in the first place, and doing so is unconstitutional in itself.

Handing the governance of UK Peoples over to foreigners (like the EU -- i.e. Brussels bureaucrats) is treason under common law. At her coronation the Queen made a solemn oath to govern the Peoples of the UK according to their laws and customs, and MPs swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Handing over British sovereignty our (mis)leaders dishonour their oaths, and betray our trust. They are utter knaves, and what is more -- they are criminal. (I think their crime could still be punishable with death by hanging! Who'd complain?)

If our Police force was not so corrupted by political influence, MPs would already have been arrested -- starting with Douglas Hurd (people have reported the crime).

Ultimately sovereignty belongs to the people; our 'representatives' had no right to give it away without our consent. Europe has always been sold to us as simply an economic arrangement. What allegiance do we owe a government which betrays us? Some people are claiming back their own sovereignty, and withholding their consent to be governed by Parliament -- becoming 'freemen on the land'.

Any statute which originates from the EU is unlawful, no freeborn English / N. Irish / Welsh / Scotsman should be obliged to follow them.--JB001 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Bill of Rights 1689 it says "...I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God."

A Privy Counsellor's oath of allegiance includes the words "You will do your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."

Perhaps there is some confusion about the UK constitution because the House of Commons has been abusing its position for some time. There are groups of people who believe it is high time UK constitutional principles were reasserted.--JB001 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Could Parliament abolish elections?

Would it be constitutional for Parliament to pass an act to extend its own term indefinitely, abolishing the rule that elections should be held every five years? If so, this should surely be mentioned in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. See Long Parliament, Septennial Act 1715, Triennial Acts; though a reliable source should be found. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bills to extend the duration of a Parliament are constitutional; there were several during the World Wars of the Twentieth century, although they were for definite periods and for one Parliament only. The most important constitutional provision in this field is that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide that the House of Lords must assent to such a Bill. In theory, if the House of Lords assented, a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament indefinitely could be enacted - but it's not remotely likely in practice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A Psrliament couldn't be indefinite, surely. By-elections could not be abolished, and, if they were, a government might run the risk of losing the majority in the Commons.--Gazzster (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Parliament can do whatever it likes, there are no limits on its power. The example was often given during law studies that it could, if it chose, ban smoking on the streets of Paris, although this would have no legal force in France. Given that the current government has already tried to pass its own enabling act in the shape of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, anything is possible. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a discussion forum on the general subject of the UK constitution, see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Gabbe (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

any act which abolished elections would 1)politicaly impossible, 2)likely to be vetoed by the Monarch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.50.99 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the Prime Minister advise the Sovereign to veto a bill?

What would happen if Parliament passes a bill that is opposed by the Government? This is unlikely, but perhaps conceivable in a situation where the Government has a very narrow or fragile majority. Could the Prime Minister then advise the Sovereign to veto the bill? Grover cleveland (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See Motion_of_no_confidence_votes_in_the_United_Kingdom. If the bill raises an issue of confidence or is deemed so by the Government, its passage would oblige the government to either resign or seek dissolution of Parliament. If the bill is minor, no confidence issue is raised. There is no concept of veto, but the Sovereign could refuse Royal Assent by utilizing their reserve powers, effectively vetoing the bill; however, this is extremely rare, having last been done in 1708. Refusing Royal Assent is a personal prerogative of the Sovereign, so it is their decision alone, but the PM could certainly encourage them to refuse assent. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Church of England / Scotland

The article currently lacks any mention of the established churches in England / Scotland. This should definitely be mentioned. Off the top of my head:

• The Archbishop of Canterbury crowns the new Sovereign
• The Sovereign is ex officio Head of the Church of England
• Parliament has authority to legislate canon law of the Church of England
• The Sovereign, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints bishops and archbishops of the CofE
• perhaps the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement deserve mention as well.

I'm sure there are more ways the church is enwtined with state that I haven't yet thought of. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the Act of Settlement (1701) stipulates that the Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, we could say that the C of E is an essential component to the UK constitution as it now stands.--Gazzster (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

it is also of note that the CoS is also involved in the coronation, and at the Accession not only must the monarch swear an oath of accession but also an oath guarenteeing the independence of the CHurch of Scotland in "all matters spiritual" - because as both are established and part of the constituton they are at the same time very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.50.99 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not an "Established" church.

--MBRZ48 (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Judicial review?

I took out the following from the lead section and moved it here:

Changing attitudes may also be seen among the judiciary: for example, the judgments in the Jackson litigation arising out of the Hunting Act 2004 indicate that senior judges may no longer necessarily be prepared to view Acts of Parliament as sacrosanct, and a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has made comments to the same effect outside the courtroom.

First of all, the lead section is supposed to summarise the article (see WP:LEAD), there's very little discussion on the topic of judicial review in the article. The little there is has a primary source (namely the Jackson judgement) as its citation (see WP:PSTS). Are there reliable secondary sources for this? Gabbe (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord Woolf's comments were also far narrower than that (in an article I read a while back - possibly in Public Law, but I can't think off the top of my head), he said that the senior judiciary might reconsider the doctrine of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty if Parliament tried to remove important and fundamental rights. Francis Davey (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Acts of Union?

81.100.246.60 (talk) has twice added Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 to the list of statutes of constitutional nature. The first time I removed it, noting that they were finally repealed in the 1990s, and so their relevance is merely historical. Should they be included, or should we only list acts currently in the statute books? Gabbe (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The repeal of an Act does not negate the past effects of the same Act unless those effects are specifically changed to another state in the repealing Act or further legislation. Thus while an Act might no longer be "on the statute book" its effects can live on and from time to time might require to be referred to so that the correct state of something set by that Act (and still not altered by later legislation) can be determined. IIRC the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 is another which has been repealed but still has some effect.--MBRZ48 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

EU law

The text currently reads Parliament could, as a matter of British law, unilaterally bar the application of EU law in the UK. This is surely dubious and certainly needs citation if true. The application of EU law to the UK arises wholy and exclusively in respect of matters where the UK has entered into treaties to that effect. This is no different to any other treaty that the UK has signed - Parliament surely cannot decide unilaterally to set aside a treaty that the country has freely entered into and bears the Royal seal?? --Red King (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliament can legislate to overrule or abolish royal prerogatives (indeed it has legislated in the past to, in effect, depose various monarchs), and acts of parliament can require anyone, including ministers, to carry out any specified duties. So, subject to the government of the day authorising the monarch to grant royal assent, parliament has ultimate constitutional power to do anything.

In practice, there would be a constitutional crisis if parliament sought to sidestep the government's treaty obligations, for example by not giving the length of notice required which, in the case of unilateral withdrawal from the EU under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, is two years.

That said, the position is complicated by the possibility that domestic courts might well consider that EU law (and general human rights law under ECHR) remained binding until the treaty obligations had been lawfully ended.

As so often in history, in practice the politics would almost certainly dictate the eventual outcome. If, for example, the EU were very unpopular and a government were elected with a popular mandate to secede, it is hard to see how the courts or international institutions could block withdrawal for very long.

Researching this, I found an interesting paper published by the European Central Bank setting out the range of views on the matter from an international perspective.

— Richardguk (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The text is legally correct. EU law obligations would no longer be enforceable in municipal law, although they would still bind the UK in international law. The obligations flow from the ECA 1972 and not the Treaties themselves which have no domestic application without a measure incorporating them into national law. There would be no constitutional crisis, rather a European crisis as the UK would in theory be obliged to pay fines for failure to respect EU law. There is no length of notice in the Lisbon Treaty for withdrawal - according to Art. 50: "[t]he Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification." No domestic court could insist on the application of EU law once the ECA had been repealed. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44178693/The-Duchy-of-Cornwall-A-Very-Peculiar-Private-Estate

The above article details some of the constitutional aspects of the Duchy of Cornwall which probably need to at least be mentioned in this article.Bodrugan (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Scribd is a document sharing website, so just because something is available there doesn't mean that it is a reliable source per WP:RS. We might provide a brief summary of the "constitutional status of Cornwall" article accompanied by a {{main}}, however. Gabbe (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cornishworldmagazine.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=138 here's a better source for the article. Bodrugan (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is often said that the UK does not have a written constitution

The first paragraph currently has "It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution". I think it is much more frequently said that Britain does not have a written constitution. It looks as if the cited source agrees with me. The editor who wrote the following sentence, apparently also expected the preceding sentence to use the word unwritten and not uncodified or de facto. So I would suggest changing it (back) to "It is often said that it does not have a written constitution."--Boson (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the 'unwritten constitution' line is that although it is often said, it is not true (ie every bit of the consitution has been written down somewhere, even if only in the works of authority). It's probably not worth putting something in the introduction which is factually incorrect, even if it is often said - I think this would confuse the reader. Thom2002 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is explained in the following sentences. Now it reads

Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.

The second sentence is not supported by the cited sources (and is probably untrue) and the following sentence, beginning with 'however', seems to refer back to a statement that is no longer there. Since many people will have heard that the UK has no written constitution, it makes sense to state explicitly that that is not the case (with appropriate references). The wording "it is often said . . ." itself strongly implies that it is not true. --Boson (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is there a written Constitution of the UK? I mean is there

(1) A single (unique)

(2) written

document

(3) containing a set of the fundamental principles

That has supremacy over

(4) Ordinary Statutory law

(5) Any single person including the monarch

UK doesn't have a Constitution unless all these conditions are met. Currently UK is an Absolute monarchy. This doesn't sound modern enough, so they call it "a constitutional monarchy without constitution". By the way, "it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one" simply means "UK lives by the code of the underworld". They also have all these spoken and implied rules, that are not written anywhere.

That is nonsense. A constitution does not have to be written down all in place, nor all be written down at all (even written constitutions have unwritten rules of how they are interpreted), nor take precedence over other laws (this may be beginning to be true in the UK with the 1972 European Communities Act, but even then such a "constitutional law" is passed by the same process as any other act). The UK (England as she was at the time) monarchy has always been hedged about with laws (and agreed to govern according to them in 1215), parliament has been around since the late 1200s and the monarchy did not become absolute in the early modern period when other countries' mediaeval assemblies fell into abeyance. The powers of the monarch to pass on the throne to Roman Catholics, suspend laws, raise taxes or keep a standing army were explicitly removed by law in 1688-9. As discussed below, almost all the political power of the monarch has since atrophied to legal fiction, although she still retains emergency reserve powers similar to those a figurehead president would have.Paulturtle (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A copy of the Magna Carta can be easily obtained as the first such document of law governing the Island. Amendments further constitute what can be accepted as the General Constitution of England though not as comprehensive as other nations.- Amanbir Singh Grewal. India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.231.245 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom article - Bill of Rights 1689 — secures parliamentary supremacy over the monarch, the result of the Glorious Revolution - dubious... please discuss

Could editors please join in the discussion relating to the monarch's role, powers, etc, for the United Kingdom article.

Talk:United Kingdom#Politics

Thanks. David (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I'd like to rename the title more related to your question as it also fits with mine... revert it if it's a bother (I don't know how to edit to make a talk page)... I've stumbled on a very similar matter. Someone has previously written that the bill of rights gives parliament supremacy... I'd like, on the basis that I prove that this is an innacurate representation to come to a new statement next to the name but it may affect much more of the article and need some goods eyes on this;

The Bill of Rights states;

The Monarchy's power is more elaborately explained in Chapter I and Chapter II and these priciples can be gathered;

Parliament must serve the Monarchy and on oath in order to make law. There is no mention of parliament stopping the Monarchy from having no say in the law, and she continues to rule with the power of parliament having to obtaine consent to pass laws and there is a vise versa when it comes to that consent. In the declaration of rights which is ajoined to the Bill Of Rights... the people have the right to re-elect a new monarchy or put one back which would be out of parliaments control.

I conclude based on these principles... that either; parliament and the monarchy have equal power, parliament and the monarchy have about equal power... or the monarchy has slightly more power since being able reject legislation that has moved through 3 sections of governments seems more effective from my observation and also parliament does have some constitutional terms to follow whereas the Monarchy doesn't seem to but is held back by the possibity of either being removed or re-elected in theory by the people or by breaking the coronation oath. Yet again, parliament by our constitutional standard can't make law without a Monarchy according to the bill of rights yet again seeing Chapter I and Chapter II

I studied the British Constitution at school:) Although its unwritten & hence can be changed very quickly, the monarch has very little power except to be consulted and to warn. In practice, parliament could simply dismiss the monarch. This link though not brilliant gives some idea. JRPG (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard one instance of law being passed without the monarch's consent... she'd only be dismissed on the grounds that parliament gained the vote to remove her... and I do not see how parliament would have any right to prevent a re-election soon after that or prevent that in anyway seeing the articles. If 50% of the population said they'd like one... there's not much that could be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.244.17 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Sovereign

Just showing my american ignorance, but this article starts talking about "the Sovereign" with defining who that is. I am pretty sure I have an idea as to who this is, but usually these things are very clearly laid out for us, either with a definition or a link to another article. Thanks very much....DannyJohansson (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Under the UK Constitution, "The Sovereign" is synonomous with "The Monarch". Two sources demonstrate this: the index of Leyland's "The Constitution of the UK" ("Sovereign: See Monarch") and Wikipedia (British Sovereign redirects to British Monarchy, not the other way round). The incumbent Monarch is HM Queen Elizabeth II. I think Monarch is the better term as it is more specific and accurate (I think otherwise it could get mixed up with Parliament as in "Parliament is Sovereign". Given that the two terms are synonomous, I'll change it to Monarch and wikilink. Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PS Danny, if you're using this article for anything important, I'd stick to the sourced facts as I think a few editors have got carried away with their own Royal enthusiasm! The powers of the Monarch are in practice more circumscribed than the unsourced statements in this article suggest. Thom2002 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more precise about which statements still need sourcing? --Boson (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of the statements under "Consitutional Monarchy" and "Prime Minister and Government" are unsourced. In particular, these sections both say that the Monarch has the power to dissolve Parliament, which does not agree with other parts of the article or with Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, therefore would need to have a pretty good source. In addition, the suggestion that the Monarch "personally exercises" her right to choose the Prime Minister is a bit of a stretch without a pretty good source. Thom2002 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is coming from two different meanings of the word "sovereign" - "the Crown in Parliament" is the sovereign - the lawmaker, recognising no higher power, without wishing to delve too deeply into the status of European Law. The Royal Veto has long since atrophied to legal fiction. One also needs to distinguish between "the Crown" (the State, although the term is gradually falling into disuse) and the monarchy - some Royal residences are the Queen's personal property whilst others belong more to the State. I agree with the bit about the Monarch "personally choosing" the Prime Minister - in practice she declines to get involved, although the emergency reserve power is still there.Paulturtle (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Republic

I think that this page would be vastly improved if the euphemistic language about "Monarchs" was cleared away by pointing out that terms like "on the advice of the Prime Minister" are fictions which obscure the removal of monarchical power from the "Monarch" and the vesting of them in the first/Prime Minister and that England became a republic de jure with the Coronation Oath Act 1688.Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree. The Queen reigns, she does not rule. I think 'Republic de Jure' is a bit strong, but at the moment the article gives massively undue weight to the formal authority of the monarchy, it would be better to cover this lightly before devoting the majority of the article to describing the day-to-day reality of where the power actually lies under the constitution. The serious books about the constitution are not tilted nearly so much towards formal royal authority Thom2002 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean "de facto" rather than "de jure" - the UK is still de jure a monarchy, although Bagehot remarked as long ago as the 1860s that it was a de facto republic. 1688 meant that the monarch held office (further codified by the 1701 Act of Settlement), raised taxes, kept a standing army and legislated by the agreement of Parliament, marking the end of Stuart claims of Divine Right (the legal theories on which Divine Right was based need not detain us here). The monarch was still Head of Government for quite a long time after 1688 - the atrophying of the monarch's hands-on role in government was a slow process over about 150 years, and the office of Prime Minister took a while to evolve (the First Lord of the Treasury was not necessarily the most powerful minister, nor did he have the right to sack his colleagues until the early twentieth century). Even after the 1830s monarchs had to be carefully handled by the government, sometimes by threatening resignation, into the reign of George V (the Abdication probably finally put an end to that).

My recollection from 20 years ago is that there were/are various Royal Prerogative powers which are exercised by the PM in the monarch's name, with little or no Parliamentary scrutiny - but you'd need to get that confirmed by a specialist. There is also a distinction between powers which are regarded as virtually dead, like the Royal Veto of legislation (the clerk just says "la Reine le veult" and that's that) and reserve powers which still exist.

As per discussion below, the Monarch as Head of State still has emergency reserve powers to appoint/dismiss a PM, and the doctrine is that this choice is one of the few occasions on which ministerial advice is not binding on the monarch. Mrs. Thatcher, for example, could not have given binding advice in 1990 that she remain as PM and have a General Election as soon as she had arranged for the deselection of "treacherous" Tory MPs. In the event of a crisis of this type senior civil servants and the heads of the police and armed forces might well act in the monarch's name, who knows.Paulturtle (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reserve Power to Appoint Prime Minister

From a strictly legal point of view, the Monarch still has formal powers to change governments, alter the course of legislation and intervene in the nation's political life. The fact that these powers have not been exercised in the UK for some time does not negate their existence. As recently as 1963, the Queen chose Douglas-Home over Rab Butler to become PM when the Cabinet could not decide. Then, in 1975, she exercised her powers to remove the Australian PM. Until there is a formal pronouncement on the extent of the Monarch's powers, either by case-law or Parliament, the article should not be changed in the manner proposed above. I do not know of any "serious books" on UK constitutional law which negate the Monarch's powers; at best, there are some comments to the effect that exercise by the Monarch of her powers might lead to a constitutional crisis. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Those two examples are messy myths. In 1963 the Queen invited Douglas-Home to form a government on the advice of the resigning Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan. She did not chose him herself. Douglas-Home did not actually accept the invitation until he had first been formally elected party leader at a meting. The real issue there was the process by which it was decided that Douglas-Home's name would be the one put forward.

In 1975 it wasn't the Queen who dismissed the Australian PM, it was the Governor General. (The Queen declined to get involved despite petition from the outgoing Australian Speaker.) The 1975 case is an awful mess because several constitutional principles clashed and the line of argument the GG followed was that as the parliament had denied the PM supply the PM should have resigned and when he didn't he had to be dismissed. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not myths but historical actualities which are both cited in a number of works on constitutional law in support of the existence of the Monarch's powers. What is a myth, however, is the idea that an outgoing PM makes a binding recommendation to the Queen regarding his successor. According to constitutional convention, the Monarch must appoint the person who is most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons; this is a judgment which she can make herself although understandably the views of politicians weigh heavily. Returning to the Macmillan succession, I can do no better than quote directly from Richard Lamb's volume on the Macmillan years: "It would certainly have been in Butler's power as Deputy Prime Minister to have instructed the Cabinet Secretary to discuss the succession. [...] With a Cabinet meeting called, Butler in all likelihood would have emerged as Prime Minister for with his letter of resignation Macmillan no longer exercised any power. The Palace gave the Queen the wrong advice in recommending her to summon Home and ask him to form a government." The procedure for the election of the Conservative party leader, whilst being responsible for the situation arising, is a red herring. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not savvy with the Macmillian situation, but to confirm Timroll, the Australian Constitution does not give the Queen power to appont or dismiss prime ministers of the Commonwealth. According to the Constitution, she has only two powers: to appoint and dismiss a Governor-general, who governs by 'Her Majesty's pleasure', and to annul legislation up to two years after it has received the Royal Assent from the Governor-General.Gazzster (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The point with the Australian PM is not who actually dismissed him but the fact that it represents a modern exercise of the prerogative power of dismissal. Lamberhurst (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As Timroll said, the dismissal was controversial, not because the power to dismiss was in dispute, but because it involved conflicting constitutionasl principles. Should a government that cannot secure supply be dismissed, even before supply has been exhausted and even though it enjoys the confidence of the lower house? To this datre, the question has never been decidfed, and Kerr's actions may indeed have been unconstitutional.Gazzster (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between powers which exist in theory but by convention are no longer used ("convention" being a specific term for a constitutional custom which is observed as if it had the force of law, e.g. nowadays it is a convention that the monarch will always assent to an Act of Parliament, something that could not be taken for granted in the early 1800s, or that the monarch will always accept as binding the Prime Minister's advice on which ministers to hire and fire - in these cases the monarch's involvement in the process is little more than legal fiction) and reserve powers to appoint and dismiss a PM (and until recently, to dissolve Parliament - it was held by academics that the monarch most certainly could have refused a dissolution if an alternative government existed) which in practice aren't used but which in principle could be.

It's also pretty clear that in Elizabeth II's reign the monarch has, as a matter of practice, simply declined to get involved. This was not the case in Queen Victoria's time, when the Prime Minister had no right to sack or overrule a Cabinet Minister and "asking somebody to form a government" was still a real question - the official party leaders the 14th Earl of Derby and Lord John Russell both tried and failed to put Cabinets together in 1855, so the Queen had to appoint Palmerston, whom she and Prince Albert detested. On occasions the Palace did have to pick between the Commons leader and Lords leader from the same party if neither was a former Prime Minister, and sometimes bow to political reality: Gladstone (former leader and PM, loathed by the Queen) in 1880 only after the two official Liberal leaders Lord Granville and Hartington had first declined, Lord Salisbury rather than Stafford Northcote (whom the Queen had regarded as senior a few years earlier, until his position declined under attack from Randolph Churchill) in 1885, Lord Rosebery rather than Harcourt in 1894 (Gladstone's advice that he be succeeded by Spencer was ignored) - even Baldwin rather than Lord Curzon as late as 1923. We do know something of the advice which was given in 1923, but what advice Queen Victoria (or Ponsonby, or whoever was advising her) took in 1880, 1885 and 1894 I know not. In 1955 and 1963 the Palace expected to be given a recommendation by the party grandees, and if Butler let himself be outplayed both times, that was his loss.Paulturtle (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no British constitution

English constitutional laws and the English Common Law don't apply to Scotland whilst Scottish constitutional laws don't apply to England. Under the ruling in Sunderland -v- Thoburn (aka Metric Martyrs) the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Act are constitutional laws and of course their territorial extend is limited to Wales and NI respectively establishing a distinct Welsh and Northern Irish constitution. There are therefore four constitutions in the UK for the four member states and this article is therefore fundamentally incorrect. wonko (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

England (of which Wales was already part; Ireland was technically a separate Kingdom until 1800 - hence Pitt's attempt to emancipate Catholics in 1800 when he legally merged Ireland into the UK) and Scotland merged to form Great Britain in 1707. In practice of course Scotland sent MPs and peers to Westminster but in theory a new legal entity was being created.

The Thorburn case is already discussed in the article and Laws LJ was quite explicit that European Law (in that case, ministers decreeing in 1994 that metric measures be used under powers granted to them in the 1972 European Communities Act, contradicting a "lesser" 1985 Act which declared imperial measures still legal) is only valid in so far as Parliament recognises it. The point about constitutional laws is that they are not subject to "implied repeal" - i.e. the 1972 Act was not deemed to have been repealed the by later 1985 Act of Parliament which clashes with it. They do not create a separate jurisdiction - the 1972 Act could still be repealed explicitly if the UK decided to leave the EU (doing away with the Scottish Parliament would be politically unthinkable but that is a different matter).

Constitional doctrines evolve over time and there may come a day when judges rule that European law takes priority over UK law, or that the constitution of Northern Ireland cannot be amended without the agreement of Dublin or some other group of people, or that UK law holds no sway over Scotland. We haven't yet reached the former position and the latter still belongs in SNP pamphlets.Paulturtle (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I just add a comment regarding the above text. The points raised regarding Scotland are not mere whimsy or fanciful diversions, they are based around fact. The union of 1707, in no way altered the constitutional situation in Scotland, this was confirmed in the famous case at the highest constitutional court in Scots law, the court of session, in McCormick v LA [1953] ScotCS CSIH_2 (30 July 1953). Source; http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1953/1953_SC_396.html.

The importance of this cannot be understated, as the court of session is the highest constitutional court in Scotland. Importantly, Lord President, Lord Cooper states 2 extremely important points in relation to the Scottish constitution and the articles of the TREATY of union of 1707. These 2 points are as follows;

1. The Lord President stated: 'The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.'

2. The Lord president also stated: 'I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be "absolutely sovereign" in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.'

Both these points are fundamental to understanding the notion of a 'British constitution' , in that there really is no such thing. There is an English constitution (for what it is), based in part upon the principles espoused in the English Bill of rights of 1689 (VERY different to the Scottish claim of right of 1689), and older documents such as the magna carta, but importantly, none of these existed within the scope of the union treaty when England and Wales joined in political union with Scotland.

I wholly understand the concept of a constitution being based around unwritten codified norms and standards, as is suggested to be the case with a British constitution detailed in the article, but in reality to adhere to such a notion as being British as opposed to being purely English, is not backed up by any evidence. To fully understand this, you need to fully understand the nature of the Union treaty agreed to, with the respective acts of the English and Scottish parliaments in 1706 and 1707. The treaty is in its nature a bilateral treaty between two separate sovereign countries, and as such is beyond domestic law of either England or Scotland. It is in fact a treaty under international law. As stated and made clear by the court of session on numerous occasions, there is no provision in the treaty articles from which Westminster derives it sole authority over Scotland, whereby the newly formed parliament of Great Britain (Westminster) can subsequently amend or alter the terms of the treaty. This is important, because as such, the union treaty makes NO provision to allow Westminster to alter the constitution of Scotland, and as such it has remained unaltered since prior to the union of 1707.

I understand that it is easy (although I think it is sloppy) to talk of a 'British' constitution, which is unwritten, but in reality it is only true if you choose to ignore the constitution of Scotland. This has little to do with the rather ill-founded comment above of 'SNP pamphleting', and more to do with historical and factual accuracy. Although a British constitution is a notion which many subscribe to, the reality is it is based upon purely English concepts. Saying something exists over and over again, doesn't mean it really does exist.

Sources;

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1953/1953_SC_396.html

http://www.nls.uk/collections/rare-books/collections/union-of-parliaments

There are at least two other aspects which this article misses. Firstly, that were you to consult Westminster, they would technically describe it as the 'UK constitution'.

Secondly, N.Ireland can never be included as part of a British constitution, as it is not part of Great Britain, but has been part of the UK since 1928 following Irish independence and partition. — Preceding unsigned comm.ent added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course that there is no constitution of the United Kingdom.

But this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a place that contains, or holds, all knowledge and truth about the world, universe and beyond. Or that will hold them in any foreseeable future. So, keep your calm and carry on with your life. Because this page is here to stay claiming that there is such constitution.

93.138.116.93 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is called “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. In common parlance the term “British” is used as “United Kingdomer” never really caught on. I dare say Ulster Unionists aren’t too upset, and those who are upset would call themselves “Irish” whatever term was used, so it’s not a matter of vast importance.

It is not “incorrect” to say that there is one constitution in the UK. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland & Welsh Assemblies are devolved bodies (see Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998). They have only such power as has been granted to them by Westminster (in the case of the Scottish Parliament, all powers other than those which have been retained). The matter is – deliberately - muddied a bit by whichever politician it was in the late 1990s declaring that the “Scottish Parliament” was meeting for the first time since 1707, and the Scottish Assembly changing its name to “Scottish Parliament”, but nonetheless that is what the law says at the moment. By the Sewel Convention, Westminster will take no action affecting Scotland without a legislative consent motion by the Scottish Parliament. As a matter of practical politics it would of course be lunacy for Westminster to vote to abolish the Scottish Parliament against Scotland’s wishes – Scotland would probably declare independence – but technically it has the legal right to do so, and I should think you’d be pushed to find a lawyer who would tell you otherwise.

The issue of the Union is separate. You are quite right that the union of 1707 was a bilateral treaty between two sovereign countries, and that this tends to be under-appreciated south of the border. Funnily enough, I raised this exact point with a Conservative politician at a speaker meeting about three years ago, who brushed me aside with a response to the effect that “Parliament created the Union and Parliament can vote to change it” before inviting the next question. On a practical level, the politician was right – if the Union is ever dissolved Parliament would dissolve itself and then meet again without the Scottish MPs, and academic lawyers would write learned articles explaining that Westminster was now technically a new legal entity. After a decent passage of time, independent Scotland would quietly repeal the long-forgotten Act of Union for the sake of wiping the legal slate clean, which is basically what happened in Ireland two generations ago. But one hopes that if David Cameron were to suggest any such thing in Cabinet the Attorney-General would have a quiet word to explain that whether the UK Parliament, or the Scots unilaterally, can legally dissolve the Union is something of a legal grey area.

You write that there is no such thing as a British constitution and that there is a separate Scottish constitution, and that this was affirmed by Lord President Cooper’s judgement in MacCormick v Lord Advocate [1953]. He did not actually say that – his comments simply imply that there is a separate tradition of constitutional law in Scotland, with sovereignty vested ultimately in the people (Declaration of Arbroath, Buchanan, various Claims of Right etc). Clearly, Lord President Cooper and his colleagues wanted to overrule Lord Guthrie who had initially ruled that the British Parliament was absolutely sovereign to amend the Union in any way it pleased.

Lord President Cooper did not comment on Lord Guthrie’s initial claim that the Scottish parliament (pre-1707) demonstrated itself to be a sovereign body by abolishing the independent Scottish state. Lord President Cooper went on to say that the British Parliament cannot be equally empowered (“sovereign”) to alter any part of the Treaty because the Treaty expressly reserves powers of modification to the British Parliament in some areas and declares other parts of the Union to be irrevocable. The Lord Advocate also admitted that the British Parliament ‘could not’ repeal or alter [certain] ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union. Clearly, that implies that the British Parliament may modify some parts of the Treaty, but not all of them.

What form does this “Scottish constitution” take? Does it mean that a Scottish court can – like the US Supreme Court - strike down an Act as “unconstitutional”? Lord President Cooper expressly says there is no means to do so - other than Dicey’s practical point that an English-dominated Parliament would be very silly to pass a law which the Scots will not obey - although LP Cooper does suggest that there might be recourse (for an “advisory opinion”) to the international courts which were already coming into being in the early 1950s. It is also explicitly stated by Lord Russell that a Scottish court can use the ancient power to declare an Act “in desuetude” (abolished as obsolete) only if that Act is pre-1707 and clearly being treated as such by the community, and he reserved his opinion about what a Scottish Court might actually do about breach of Treaty Article 19 (Scotland’s separate legal system) or Article 25 (all laws of either Kingdom inconsistent with the Treaty are void).

Does the “Scottish constitution” mean that there is a separate Scottish government? No. In the same case Lord Russell pointed out that one of the first Acts of the new British Parliament was that there should only be one British Privy Council, similar to the pre-existing English Privy Council (the Cabinet as we know it evolved during the early eighteenth century).

I’m sure we’ll hear more of these arguments as the Scottish referendum approaches, so it’s worth looking to see what academic lawyers say at the moment. The best we can say, it seems to me, is that it’s a bit of a grey area to which no obvious clear answer exists.

This 2007 article by David Walker (former Regius Professor of Law in the University of Glasgow) is of some interest.

http://www.webcitation.org/65WHtQ2vK

Walker is pretty clear, incidentally, that Lord President Cooper’s opinion is obiter – legalese for a judicial aside which does not directly impinge on the case. The 1953 case was decided on other grounds, that the Queen’s title was fixed as “Elizabeth II” at her accession proclamation and that the 1953 Act was merely rubber-stamping it. A face-saving compromise was later proposed whereby monarchs would bear the higher numeral, e.g. any future King James would be “James VIII” in England as well as in Scotland.

Since 1707 Parliament has often amended the terms of the Treaty or parts of them (Walker gives the example of some issues to do with the Presbyterian Church in the nineteenth century). The Treaty specified that Scotland should have 16 lords and 45 MPs in the British Parliament – the number of MPs has changed and hereditary peers have been (almost) abolished. Article 2 says that the Crown is prohibited to “Papists” but nowadays there is talk of relaxing this. Walker is sceptical of whether Parliament had the legal power to amend the Union, but there is of course an obvious element of academic sophistry about this. The common sense observation is that Parliament often has, over the course of centuries, voted to amend many aspects of the Union without the sky falling in – to which Walker retorts that it did not necessarily have any right to do so.

This 1995 article by the late Prof Neil MacCormick (who was of course the son of the John MacCormick of the 1953 case) is also worth a read, if you can suspend your sniggers at his assertions - despite his disingenuous claims that this is “not a party political article” – that not only will the EU bring peace and prosperity but that the EU is better for democracy than sovereignty ever was.

(http://www.scottishaffairs.org/backiss/pdfs/sa11/SA11_MacCormick.pdf)

MacCormick argues that legal entities can come into being from treaties (like the EU) without having been specifically created by a single sovereign, and that - as in a Federal system - sovereignty can be divided among different layers of legislature, none of which can legally define its own powers. He does, however, argue that notions of 'Popular sovereignty' – either a minority seeking self-determination or the Scottish tradition that a constitution must always be subject to adoption by the whole people - belong to political theory (i.e. how law is recognised as valid) rather than a pure matter of law itself.

As I said earlier, constitutional doctrines evolve over time, and in the seventeenth century there were legal theorists who argued, no doubt with many learned precedents, that the King had the right to suspend existing laws (as opposed to vetoing them at the instant of passage, a right which the monarch still enjoys – but only in theory) or to raise taxes and keep a standing army on his own authority – all powers which were explicitly denied to the monarch in 1688. If the Stuarts had had their way absolute or near-absolute monarchy would no doubt have been established with full “legal” authority, followed no doubt by a French-style bustup a century later.

There may come a time when judges rule that EU law takes precedence over British law, or that Dublin is entitled to be asked to agree any change in the status of Northern Ireland, or that no constitutional change may take place without referendum approval – as opposed to these things being so, as now, only because Westminster says so. There may come a time when legal theorists argue that the present devolved Scottish Parliament has acquired a legal life of its own, answerable to the Scottish people, and represents the historic Scottish “constitution” – but we haven’t reached that stage yet, even if many Scots feel that that is morally the case. Under the Scotland Act 1998 anything to do with the constitution – not just relating to the (devolved) Scottish Parliament, but also the Crown and the Union itself - is reserved to Parliament at Westminster. There is legal appeal to the House of Lords (nowadays, the Supreme Court, which normally contains at least two Scottish judges) on Scottish constitutional issues, but not Scottish criminal appeals.

From the point of view of improving the article, we are already heading into pretty specialised territory, and I'm a bit reluctant to risk misleading people if there are academic writings more up to date than 2007 to which I don't have immediate access.Paulturtle (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming from an entirely different standpoint as to why there is no constitution, a constitution really only has one main purpose, it's there written by specialized author's to announce the government will make necessary promises to it's people eternally as an insurance for their protection, if the government breaks, repeals or acts outside of the constitution(s), then it merely acts as a warning.

I've also made an edit regarding a more balanced view of the matter based on the notion that the government doesn't have absolute power as those times have ended, it's fair for people to believe or doubt this as being the main benefactor of the article, since if an absolute-majority of people decided they no longer approved of acts coming from a certain politician, it wouldn't be practically true for parliament to be able to claim they're still ultimately in force and people can within their own right within this circumstance retaliate with a coup d'etal despite whatever law(s) was made that most like to have been made to possibly prevent them. There are only two types of laws; passive an active... The passive protect us from the active ones in which people can act if the passive ones are being crossed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Privy Council

I regard as completely wrong the assertion that there is no British Constitution. It is just not written down on one bit of parchment.

correctPaulturtle (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The first element is the abbreviation HMG , Her ( or His ) Majesty's Government. So there is a monarch and the monarch has a government. A monarch has authority over the kingdom.

The second element is the Act of Settlement, 1701 . This includes the clause :

That from and after the Time that the further Limitation by this Act shall take Effect all Matters and Things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom which are properly cognizable in the Privy Councill by the Laws and Customs of this Realme shall be transacted there and all Resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Councill as shall advise and consent to the same.

So the monarch's total power is delegated to the PC . And that is run by the Prime Minister, who can get any arbitrary result by selecting three cronies to sit for a hearing. Judges and tax collectors in practice require the authority of parliament. The armed forces do not.

This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It means that matters which are supposed to be discussed in the Privy Council were to be discussed there are not privately. The monarch still made the appointments, there was no doubt of his right to veto legislation which he was not willing to countenance and according to the wiki article on the Act of Settlement that clause was soon repealed anyway. As discussed above, the evolution of the Cabinet and the office of Prime Minister between 1688 and c1832, and the corresponding atrophy of the Monarch's powers as Head of Government (hence the phrase "HM Government") was a long, slow process. The Monarch's powers as Head of State (giving permission for a premature election, choosing a Prime Minister if there is no obvious choice) still exist but are no longer as actively exercised as they were by Victoria, Edward VII or even George V. Nowadays, Prime Ministers have become quasi-Presidential figures, but that is a comparatively recent development. The Army is reliant on Parliamentary authority under the 1688 Settlement, although despite the way Asquith lectured the King during the Curragh Incident it is doubtful whether, as recently as the First World War, either the King or the officer corps quite saw the Army as being entirely under ministerial control.Paulturtle (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I observe the constitution, I'm not an expert. So I will not hack any of the existing text for a month. I look forward to comments, preferably reasoned. Reg nim (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see exactly what your issue with the current text is, Reg nim? Thom2002 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Thom2002. My beefs are that the article ignores : 1) from the Act of Settlement 1701 our prime minister has the powers of a medieval monarch and 2) the government as the property of the monarch. Reg nim (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And the consequence that the British Parliament is primarily about money. Reg nim (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unitary state

The very last line reads

"These distinctions were created as a result of the United Kingdom being created by the union of separate countries according to the terms of the 1706 Treaty of Union, ratified by the 1707 Acts of Union."

This needs clarified. The treaty was created in 1706. The English parliament passed the 'union with Scotland Act' in 1706, which effectively said that England agreed to the articles of the treaty. This was then followed by the 'Union with England Act passed by the Scots Parliament in 1707, which effectively said that Scotland agreed with the articles of the treaty.

This is actually quite important historically, as there exists some considerable confusion in some sources regarding the treaty of union of 1706, and its final approval in 1707.

So, to be clear, the articles of the treaty were agreed in 1706. The English parliament passed the respective union act in 1706. The Scots parliament followed with the respective act passed in 1707.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Union is commonly referred to as "the Union of 1707", even if this is not strictly accurate. I'm not sure that this is really such a massive issue, although I don't have any issue with changing it.Paulturtle (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Attorney-General's statement

A great overview of the role and position within the constitution of the monarch and the heir apparent from the current Attorney General.

Read from para. 6 at the foot of page 3

Conventions and practices, including ones relating to the heir apparent and his "preparations for kingship". Quite a notable statement and possibly could be used to reference (and expand/correct) this Wikipedia article and others.

Can I ask editors to read through the document, especially from the bottom of page 3, as it is an excellent source and explains the situation (re: the monarch's/the PoW's role in British politics and government) clearly and concisely too. David (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

a question about this constitution

i am a student of political science and am studying british constitution,i have a question that is i have read that english constitution is unwritten but still we find its text in written form than why does it says that it is unwritten? Kindly clear my question and send answer on my account khadijawaheedahmed@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.222.244 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the article and stop being lazy. David (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlike many other nations

The statement "Unlike most other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document." was recently altered, removing the word "most" and with an edit summary stating that Britain has no constitution. I have changed it to read "many other". It is common knowledge that many countries have a "single constitutional document", but the changed sentence could be understood to imply that all other countries have such a "single constitutional document". Without a source , we should not state or imply that all or most countries have such a document. As regards the edit summary: sometimes the word "constitution", often capitalized, is used to refer to a single written document. This is not how the word is used here or in the many books on the British constitution. --Boson (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact very few nations have a single document which described their constitution. The US doesn't (for example). The document called "The Constitution" omits a lot of important constitutional information about how the US functions. What separates the US Constitution out is that it is subject to a form of entrenchment. So the UK probably has no entrenched fundamental document as many nations do. Francis Davey (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

confederacy like Tanzania??

I removed the following:

nor a confederacy (like Tanzania)

from the "Unitary state" section. The WP "Confederation" article makes no distinction between "confederation" and "confederacy," the "Tanzania" article asserts that Tanzania is a unitary state, and a Google search on

Tanzania confederacy

returns no relevant results.-Arch dude (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I'm sorry to have to say this, but this article really is a right mess, and recent editing has not helped. Argovian (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT OccultZone (Talk) 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot more than just me "fixing it". We need to come to an agreement as to the structure of this article for a start. Argovian (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that whilst other articles such as those on the Cabinet, the Monarchy and the Prime Minister receive so much attention from editors (and are largely good) this one does not, despite it being an important article for the United Kingdom which should sit at the centre of all these constitution-related articles. Argovian (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a need to be surprised, especially when the article's history section contains a huge list but no summary. 'History' and 'Administrative law' requires urgent attention. OccultZone (Talk) 14:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The History section was recently created and actually just lists the statutes that were previously in the Sources section. As I wrote just before, recent editing has not helped... Argovian (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The History and Administrative Law sections were rewritten earlier this year. Whizz40 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of the lede section Comment Spelling/grammar correction

"Others object to this principle as having an absolute validity, particularly in light of the UK's membership in the European Union, historical influences trending from previous eras suchlike the Age of Enlightenment and the sanctification of prominent documents that endorse human beings the freedom to normative morality of which primarily being the Magna Carta." This sentence is very long and makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anonymous573462 has made a large number of poor quality unreferenced edits which have not helped this article at all, I propose that they are reverted wholesale. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You might also like to look at the same editor's recent edits to Magna Carta, and the debate they have sparked on the Talk page there. GrindtXX (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence wasn't originally my own and I overlooked it's compatibility - The rest makes sense.

I've deleted as for now unless I find the time to improve on it.

The sentence WAS added by you here [[2]] unless you mean you copied and pasted it from elsewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am taking Anonymous's claim (at Talk:Magna Carta) to be "gone" at face value, and am reverting to the last clean version. Frankly, I have no idea whether there is anything constructive or useful among his/her edits; but they are so badly written as to be incomprehensible, and they are certainly not an improvement to this article. GrindtXX (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was from the same frame-working with a minor edit, I deleted it, grammar's not my strongpoint and you are urged by the policies to repair sentences rather than delete them. Grindtxx it's called a talk page and wasn't a debate since no one attacked my arguments which is dishonest game when people take away your content for no reason and please don't resort to rhetorical devices and remain mature. As for my own edit being reverted I'd like an explanation it's not against the rules to add sourced content. Reverting me "wholesale" doesn't make sense. - Please show me where the content on the top paragraph collapses. - I advice you read the second source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

@Theroadislong could you please remove the wikpedia sources and restore my work... The ncbi website works alone if the other must go aswell. Please.

@Theroadislong please talk with me here, the whole premise of the UK constitution is that it's written, unwritten and there would be external factors to consider (social and scientific as an example)... But no affirmed basis for a constitution has been given or can be because it's always up for dispute... I'm adding content that recognised the area of external factors and this is mostly comprised of the basis of human decision making without ignoring all human beings. This is something that would new to add for development, currently the page looks as though it's an inalienable property which can't even exist. Infact the UK constitution does imply a moral basis when regarding the coronation oath and the US constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson and when you read his works they were based on "The Jefferson's bible" so morality must play a part in the unwritten side of the constitution. There are sources such as;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm

Which states the UK constitution is uncodified (meaning no documental basis) as well as codified (with accepted documentation)... if we were to ignore the uncoded side too much it would look as though the article is insist that the constitution is based on documents which it is not. - So from this to your latest edit. Does proof for neurological morality require a link towards the UK constitution? (This would insist on a codified link). I'm asking you whether the criticism if fully fair regarding the external influences which are not given a code. - This is a difficult topic on the page that would open to new content regarding the other side of the constitution as being the unwritten areas.

See; An array of conventions, or unwritten understandings and customs, also surround the rules of constitutional behaviour. Although not supported by law, these are considered to be binding.

- from the link please and I hope you find the time to reply to this and ask whether the mark next to my source is necessary since it is accepted as a tie. - Also, should I add this link to solve the problem?

I read all three of those citations, which included someone's PhD thesis. None of them mentioned cognitive conscientious implications of the constitution. "Cognitive conscientious implications" appears to be a new phrase invented just for this series of edits. All the recent edits by Anonymous are OR. Removed. This looks like a pet peeve/theory of Anonymous: see his edits on Magna Carta and Freemen on the Land 90.210.241.251 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted again after Anonymous put them back without discussion on the talk page. The first citation is a BBC web page from 2004, not bad, but nowhere does it mention any cognitive implications or conscientious implications. These implications are simply inferences of Anonymous. The second citation is a PhD thesis, interesting enough, but again you will be searching in vain for anything supporting any reference to cognitive or conscientious implications. The third citation is about the neurobiology of moral behaviour. It has exactly nothing to do with the UK constitution, referencing it a grand total of zero times.

While I'm on the subject, "implications" is the wrong word to be using. "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications" is a meaningless phrase. How can an implication be a source? It cannot. Something can be implied from a source, certainly, but an implication requires a source.

Basically, Anonymous is talking nonsense. They didn't put up with it at Freemen on the Land, they didn't put up with it at Magna Carta, let's not put up with it here. .90.210.241.251 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And he's still reverting without discussion on the Talk page. Page 151 of the PhD thesis says nothing about either cognitive or conscientious approaches to the Constitution. The Neurobiology article has no reference to the Constitution of the UK at all (unsurprisingly). Reverting. 90.210.241.251 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Source 2 specifically calls it an implication. I put this in the description. I left a message here and no one replied and seemed fine with everything, so the burden of issue is on you for not discussing here first - no offence intended. Yes I left in the description and on here that source 3 has no direct link... if anything should be deleted it should be "Cognitive" and that link... but it's for detail, there's not much reason to remove it since it does bind with link 2.

Please don't slander me on separate cases, it's not mature, I didn't win and I am fine with that. You've been wrong about your main criticism and you're looking to attack me from elsewhere. "cognitive conscientious implications" is not underlined as a neolibelism... because it would say "Cognitive conscientious implications" and if you were to highlight all 3 words then it would all be underlined to a separate article. There are no rules on word usage... people regularly describe the links themselves. - Wikipedia promotes new fields of content to be added.

Cognitive is just for description. The 3rd link is showing it's relevant to the moral principle. The problem I believe is and please don't take offense, you're possibly attempting to look for a "coded" answer to an "uncoded" question, the only way to answer something "uncoded" is via description since attempting to define rather than describe contradicts the setting of "uncoded".

Source 2 specifically calls what an implication? Page number please, because I'm not seeing it, after reading that 3 times. Source 3 has no direct link at all: so you're fine with it being taken out... and yet you keep putting it back in. There is no reason for it to be in at all. It is irrelevant.

I'm not slandering you. What do you think "cognitive conscientious implications" means? Because it appears to be a meaningless phrase. What has these implications? The Constitution itself?

There are rules on word usage. You can't use the word banana to refer to an apple. Either explain what you mean in understandable English, or refrain from adding words you can't explain.

He who asserts must prove. You assert these links are relevant: prove it. 90.210.241.251 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Know the difference between describing and defining. Know also the difference between coded and uncoded.

coded means it has a specification uncoded means it doesn't

describing means it's giving the nature of defining means it's stating exactly what it is

so I am only able to describe based off "implications" since implications means there are alternatives as to what actually influences the UK but it's ofcourse unwritten. - Based on the other sources these are morally influenced and hence I describe with "cognition".

"conscientious" is also a quality as problems in relation to law must have care.

The only thing that requires consent, and I've mentioned whether it should be removed is the "3rd" link. - I'm not sure whether this is as much of a major matter because there's not much of a need to remove it unless someone disputes it itself as being completely unnecessary to the topic or having no merit which I'd more than go with but that's not happened as of itself independently. Rather from TheRoadIsLong as the ombudsman in the matter, I'm disadvantaged but nothing much I can do, the site is supposed to be open to different views, but some people using this site will attack the opposing view for censorship reasons especially when your field of view on a matter is less published or even difficult to implement etc. - My addition alone is somewhat on the basis of that conscious free-will exists and people usually prefer to use it in taking upon a moral choice is it's more clear to them and that's factor of the constitution just not mentioned itself, there's only that there is a contesting view to the popular norm mentioned, I'm just adding a branch. - The 3rd link is evidence for the part although not explicitly mentioning the UK constitution on that link, I'd have thought it would be general enough to the case and is does tie with the 2nd link.

You're the one who is asserting here and not me, I'm doubting the assertion that parliamentary sovereignty is absolutely valid and it is later stated that is something of a matter of debate.

So I am not within need of justification since I'm not presenting something "coded".

It's like doubting religion... no assertions are being made.

It's like asking which came first the egg or the chicken?

In this case; parliamentary sovereignty or normative morality.

parliamentary sovereignty is the chicken if you do further investigation since moral ideas of running a society existed before parliament. So parliamentary sovereignty is the assertion/coded area of the constitution.

And you should probably check out "Sentience#Philosophy and sentience" because the questions you have been asking me have been fallacious, I'm having trouble in detecting as to whether you are looking to troll me. - For example; You're essentially asking me to define consciousness as an argument against the text??? Link 2 does mention implications where I directed you to; chapter 5, page 151, and it states...

(The implication being that constitutional law is conceptually distinct from constitutional morality)

... if you read the latter conclusion from Chapter 6 page 174 (which would be inferred from the previous text and all text;

"It is sometimes said that Britian has no constitution, but that is a mistake. Britian has an unwritten as well as a written constitution, and part of the former consists in understandings about what laws Parliment should enact."

This isn't the whole Thesis but gives arise to the summary of implications described as ones "understood" or as I put it "conscientious" and if moral... therefore cognitive must fit since morality is argued as cognitive... I could replace "cognitive" with "moral" but cognitive appears more accurate since "moral" can generally be misinterpreted in much broader terms and "cognitive" is more on cue for description because of this.

I'm sorry to everyone reading this as I've had to be repeating myself in places, it's for clarity.

Firstly: SIGN YOUR POSTS. Put four tildas after the last line you write. Each time, every time. Secondly, DON'T USE THE EDIT SUMMARY ON THE MAIN PAGE FOR DISCUSSION. That's what the Talk page is for. Thirdly, you broke 3RR. You have previous form for this.

I still have no idea what you're trying to say with your edit to the lede. It used to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions." You changed it to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and cognitive conscientious implications." You added those 4 words. That means you assert that "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications." Or are you trying to say "The constitution has cognitive conscientious implications."? Because that's not what you've changed the lede to say. You've changed it to say that cognitive conscientious implications are an unwritten source of the constitution. Which, as I've said, is nonsense. Did you mean to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions, and cognitive conscientious implications."? Because that single comma, right there? Totally changes the meaning of the sentence. Clauses are important.

I also have no idea what you're talking about in reference to coded and uncoded. Do you mean codified and uncodified? Because again, those are very different things.

Now, let's get on to those cited documents you keep linking to. The point of those references is to show your source for the statement. In this case, to show your sources for the statement "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications." Or, alternatively, "The constitution has cognitive conscientious implications.", depending on which you meant.

The BBC page does not support your statement.

The PhD thesis (by Stuart Lakin, a respected jurist) does not say anything about cognitive or conscientious implications. Your use of those terms is Original Research. It doesn't matter what is true: it matters what is verifiable. That's a core tenet of Wikipedia. Page 151 talks about constitutional LAW and constitutional MORALITY, not the Constitution itself. Page 174 is not a quote by Lakin: it's a quote by Dworkin. It talks about "understandings", not "implications". For you to say it talks about "implications" is just plain wrong.

The Neurobiology article is not directly relevant to the Constitution of the UK. You might as well link to an article on linguistics, or ethics, or the Bible: the link is too tenuous.

You accuse me of trolling. Previously you accused me of slander. You continue to make personal attacks against me.

Nobody is talking about parliamentary sovereignty. That's a strawman. We're talking about cognitive conscientious implications in the Constitution (whatever they are).

You do not have consensus on the changes you keep making.

Now, are you going to answer clearly? 2.122.138.91 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

2.122.138.91, I fear you're on a hiding to nothing trying to explain the subtleties of a misplaced comma to Anonymous. I am not trying to be offensive, but all the evidence – spelling and grammatical errors, choice of completely the wrong words, and sentences that mean nothing – would suggest that he is quite severely dyslexic. If it was just a matter of a few specific errors, then other editors could come along afterwards and tidy up – that's how wikipedia works. The problem here is that his prose is so confused that the rest of us have very little real idea of what it is he's trying to say.

However, wading through the treacle of his arguments above, I think that by "cognitive conscientious" he simply means "moral"; and by "implications" what he really means is something more akin to "foundations", or just "elements". In other words, the point he's trying to make is that the constitution, despite being largely unwritten, is underpinned by a basis of morality.

As for his sources, the BBC article and neurobiology article are clearly completely irrelevant; but Lakin's thesis is indeed about moral elements embedded within the constitution. Rather to my own surprise, therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that there may be something worth keeping in this edit. However, it needs to be worded completely differently, whatever statement is made should be explicitly attributed to Lakin, and it probably doesn't belong in the lede. GrindtXX (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Moral (and ethical) aspects of the Constitution? I'm surprised to find there isn't already something about them in there, to be honest: yes, there's probably a case for including something about them if we can find sources. There's a possible link to Natural Law, as there would be to any country's constitution. But I agree: not in the lede. Not until there's something significant in the main body 2.122.138.91 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Adhering to those problems; some of which I had made notice, the larger problem (which I doubt I can solve easily and would inevitably lead to a "consensus" agreement somewhere if something is going to be documented in the article relating to these moral foundations). Is that they're external to the body, whoever is in power in parliament writes their own codified constitution.

Going back, with also accounting the general view of the UK public, the reasons why parliament is allowed the power it has after several revolutions is because of the verbal agreements made during the Glorious Revolution, there will ultimately be nothing on paper "constitution-wise", the agreement was simply that the Sovereign at the time could only rule if they took instruction from the gospels... if this is broken then they are not sovereign. Parliament (or any government officials in office) like-wise must make an oath-of-allegiance to the Sovereign who is undertaking instruction from the gospels and can only be said to "serve the Sovereign" is by also contributing to sovereign duty.

This is perhaps the only sensible explanation out there as to why we have these "myths" regarding to why we're considered equals within society unless you're willing to show an alternate but I promise you after much personal research there is no other contract that exists is declaring equality in a constitutional manner. (The other mentions of equality are legislation, common law or human right conventions but none are strictly constitutional since they are prone to change; ie; legislation, a new bill to replace the old one, common law; within several cases, a jury decides a case differently and with ECHR, we leave the EU quite simply.)

So I don't know whether this is lost knowledge to the encyclopaedia that can not be restored until someone writes about it or "forgotten common sense" since I can only presume it was more evidently the case during that era. - Unless there's something that contradicts this all thesis all together, but when you read from the Bill of Rights, it almost sounds matching to this idea with "Catholics being unable to lead", "must be protestant", (coronation oath 1689; no alternative interpretation of the bible etc) The introduction holds against abuses of power that happened previously and The final paragraph of the Bill of Rights states it must "uphold the gospels and at the same time give parliament it's powers".

The only explanation I can think of, is that the bill of rights was a constitution but had to change with the times (ie; no longer are fire-arms any use to modern society, but interestingly they're not illegal, it's the lack of license that's illegal., then it became inferred that because the constitution had go through necessary changes to fit within society, the point of view arose that "since parliament changed the constitution once, it can change it again" and of-course at this can easily be mistaken for it an absolution. - Also if you look at the Bill of Rights and compare it to any other document in Parliment... it's not named as an "Act", I believe the only one that isn't an "Act" since there are conditions. A bill must also "be passed" to become law... Some people interpret this as parliament has contractual obligations (Freeman on the Land), I'm laying down no assertions, just that an explanation exists different to regular "Acts" and I am still looking for alternative explanations.

As for the gospels being mentioned in the bill of rights, the coronation oath (and possibily the Magna Carta had amendments) during the glorious revolution... I think it's safe to assume that they are completely relevant to the "moral constitution or basis". - There is just nothing on paper (in a coded form) that's arguing this.

If you could add your perspective on the matter it's most welcome, here is the original document of "The Bill of Rights", I haven't quoted from it word for word since the language is difficult but I've given my summary;

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

So I attempted to create a standpoint on the basis of an accepted view of a moral based constitution but this will be difficult given the circumstances and I don't know how to construct from here. If you agree with the perspective I've addressed that it is fairly clear the UK constitution does have a moral basis more based on "here-say". However the original text has been replaced with no mention of;

"III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made."

with

"And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God."

- Which could be classed an uncoded invalidation by some if it's being used to impeach the original text. (I would and think it's only fair it should be mentioned in some way.)

And you can see here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

So I'm suggesting that parliament must have made a mistake by not realising they were not allowed to change the Bill especially in regards to "III." for it's moral philosophical standpoint but arguably it may have had some influence with "freedom of religion".

The angle I am proposing; and on the basis that, if you look at the old bill of rights honestly, it would be completely dishonest to have the page frame-worked as it currently is without mention of the moral principles at all if you accept the inferences I'm making within the talk page.

So, would we be able to brainstorm a method into writing something following the rules and guidelines of wikipedia policy for an angle that falls within the "moral principle" criteria for the sake of the page holding a instituted stance of constitutional origin on the page as having a priority.

As for a late response to my revert on "freeman on the land", I had just joined wikipedia, and for people in support of the "freeman on the land movement" to make their related observations to be delusional (yes they affirm parliament is via consent which I can gather as to why they may think that but do not affirm a position with regards this).

- It's just a difficult angle but we could come down to something via the rules of;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

Since it states "Normally to be avoided", and I'm convinced this falls within the acception and can be accepted via;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Handling_disputes

consent in regards to some text supported by some link that can be accepted by the majority of us here if we can agree on something to be written that can be backed up. - Otherwise I'm convinced this is a dead-end for what I'm looking to mention. Conclusively I'm probably going to need some "unavoidable" leeway since it's special case. It depends on whether you all agree with the moral principle not being rejected by the constitution for all the reasons "historal and natural" listed above throughout the talk page. Whatever I can get to allow something in is probably going to be essential is where I'm getting at, if what's written is agreed with. (User talk:Anonymous573462) (talk) 3:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anonymous573462, your ability to express yourself in English is truly abysmal. You may think you're making a coherent argument: believe me, you are not. Your last sentence, for example, "Whatever I can get to allow something in is probably going to be essential is where I'm getting at, if what's written is agreed with", is just completely meaningless; it isn't English. It's as if you had chosen to come on here and insisted on writing in Polish, expecting the rest of us to learn Polish in order to converse with you. I for one don't have time in my life to learn a new language simply to understand what it is you're trying to say.

However, what is obvious is that you are still trying to argue a case. You have still not grasped the core wikipedia content policy of no original research: WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not there to be a platform for your (or anyone else's) opinions or arguments. It is there to report and summarise what has been said by other people who are accepted as having some authority in their field. The standard for "authority" is whether the claim has been previously made in a reliable source. If you think you have something fresh or different to say about the UK constitution, go away and publish it, in print or online, in some reputable medium. Then, and only then, will you have the legitimacy to come back here to add that point of view to this article. GrindtXX (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk: core content policies suggesting an alternative for the principle to be demoted to a rule. (An OR can be enacted by general consent for counter-claims to documented points of view if what is written can be agreed upon) is the summary.

If you wanna address pro's or con's of this idea, support or demote it that'll be great. User:Anonymous573462 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link [3] though sadly I can make no sense of the proposal. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of what the amendment would do; (Converted to a Rule rather than a principle, principles are allowed to ignore the rules if necessary.)

Fictitious Article Text; "The Japanese Economy is going to boom by 2020 (Sourced from an article)"

A late editor spot's this and has reasons to suggest this can't be true and insists it's less likely to be the case, then can ask to add something like;

"as is expected to be the case if Sony meets the sale revenue for their new 6K AP70 Camcorders" (Citation needed). - Fitted to the article in the correct way.

Other editors either give or do not consent because of the reason's he has listed in the talk section for the text. - They can not add unless enough consent is given

Compared to; (A Principle)

Automatic reversion despite how true his findings are etc to the other members. Should I add the example? Anonymous573462 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research though.Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but for clarity; restricted only for counter-claims, not for beginning new subjects since that can create a fair amount of "citations needed"; I think there is an acception to "counter-claims" for policy if most people are able to identify a flaw in specific article.

Which is more important to wikipedia; studies or customs? By studies I mean having the quality of complete nature of fact. The current system guarantees references to be put on wikipedia, but in the event that the references do not hold weight once studied for their validity I think studies must have access to being put on Wikipedia (under the assumption that the counter-claim appears to has no contradictions.) employing a kind of warning for readers seems reasonable to me, perhaps adding a new lede type that represents "Disputable" would suffice as an idea (on that most editors agree it does look disputable to other general world-views). I think a core missing principle is to protect truth as best as possible, I'd like to assume you agree that not every reference can be true. In defense of the idea, I think editors hold a better merit for protection than fully using those references.

If you can agree or disagree here that perhaps this is the best method of protection... ... and agree or dissagree that we should be interested in preserving facts via customs...

I'm eager to know this or where your view on this matter trends to. Anonymous573462 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can make no sense at all of what you have written above, I will leave it to others to comment. Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

meh Lol. - All I can do is say, question the current NOR principle for what it does; does it assure all the facts go on wikipedia? are there pro's and con's for the decision. - I can't do more than that. I made a few edits but paragraphs get me confused and I've barely slept. sorry. I have no problems with people understanding me on youtube, I'm guessing there is a huge difference of opinion on certain matters. Anonymous573462 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The foundational structure of the article is not backed up at all... the claimed Parliamentary Sovereignty has no source to back itself up. We need a complete fair restructure.

This article is structured from the position that the constitution is parliamentry sovereignty but the claim isn't backed up. We need a fair restructure of this article... as it becomes more evident... professionals in this field have yet to lay down a position on matter and other qualified individuals all dispute different positions on the matter to such a degree that no one really knows the constitution and thus would be misleading to suggest that one parties view supercede's the other even if backed up.

We should instead be looking at something like;

Conservative view; (branch off into other sects)

Liberal view; (branch off)

Republican view; (branch off)

Labour view; (branch off)

Libertarian view; (branch off) etc.

Conclusion; The constitution is left undecided (which the current source for parliamentry sovereignty represents).

Because what we're really looking at when viewing this article is someone misleading people by stating that their point of view is currently fashioned as law and I say deceitfully comes into question as the source they provided stood completely contrary to their approach in writing this article.

We should be looking at a basis of different perspectives without affirming any point of view as being currently achknowledged by everyone. We could provide a point a view that reasonably represents the party and for others to add their sects likely perspective... add "citation needed" (at which leave since all parties follow the same problem and even if someone finds a representative of their party that fits their perspective first... doesn't give them grounds to remove the others because someone can eventually complete the claims. We can list the authors from each party claim and add it in. I stand that this is the most honest approach for fair representation. This article has made breaches of all 3 rules for a writers agenda; no original research, neutral point of view and verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.244.17 (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently it's almost like a propaganda version of what the first editor wrote;

Britain is often said to have an unwritten constitution, by which it means no single constitutional document which defines the working of Britain's constitutional system. According to British theory, a collection of

   Acts of parliament
   decrees
   conventions
   traditions

together form its unwritten constitution.

Among the many key documents or conventions are the

   Magna Carta;
   Habeas Corpus Act, 1679
   Bill of Rights, 1689
   Act of Settlement, 1701;
   Act of Union, 1707 (joining England & Scotland to form Great Britain)
   Act of Union 1800, joining Great Britain & Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
   Statute of Westminster, 1931
   Parliament Act, 1911;
   Parliament Act, 1949;
   Peerage Act, 1963;
   European Communities Act, 1972
   Convention since the reign of Queen Anne that the monarch will not refuse to grant the Royal Assent to Bills passed by parliament;
   Convention that the monarch will ask the leader of the dominant party in the House of Commons to form a government;
   Convention that the monarch will ask a member of the House of Commons (rather than the House of Lords or someone outside parliament) to form a government.

Not all political scientists accept that Britain has an unwritten constitution. Some go as far as to insist that Britain, in the absence of a written constitution, has no constitution.

to be finished . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.244.17 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No one seems to be joining in on the discussion here... I'd like to reframe the article somewhat... the fact is we have a few candidates;

parliament sovereignty unsure of the constitution a republic

This is the problem with wikipedia when it comes to religious and political based articles... some people always have to affirm their worldview that doesn't necessarily reflect everyone elses. Yes some people are going to write within their sources pertaining to one of the 3 listed above... this doesn't necessarily give them merit either... I'd like, by right of following the rules of wikipedia (Neutral Point of View) to expand the article into those 3 groups rather than just 1 being listed for other people to add to in the same way that this article itself grew and hope people will respect the decision without pulling the "oh you need sources, or there appears to be a mistake but probably in good faith! etc... I've seen unreferences work on this page and left editors to add references and I'm expecting the same in return once I get a format set up that infringes on hopefully none of the work.

here are some concerns with the ideology of parliamentary sovereignty that would reflect a general demographic;

-Who gets to decide terms? As to what exactly establishes a heirachy system? -If 3 men voted to rape one 1 woman... we view this as immoral... so if 60 million or so people get to impose on 1, doesn't this also follow an immoral process? -Cartel of Law (or monopoly)... only certain individuals based on subjectivity would be allowed to write law. -Rigging the system; for example... hitler's rise to power, I believe we learned something here. -Also, A party decides "no more democracy"... we'd simply revolt and the law in contrast is more than clearly mortmain and this would be a waste of resources to conduct over an ideology. -Conflict with bible; Man has dominion over the earth and not the other way round... Parliament's a building, thereof; We have dominion over. -Another conflict with the bible; the queen and prime minister would represent a false-idol if they're given absolute power unchangable. (which they must serve?) -No change towards something has to be mutual by natural order... if 2 men stood in a room and 1 wanted both to stay and the other wanted to leave the room... the one who wishes to leave can simply walk out. -The idea of parliamentary sovereignty is essentially suggesting individuals are too low class to establish terms yet individuals by natural can establish their own terms... perhaps this is too similar to the biblical conflict example. -The bill of rights doesn't specify parliament has supremecy itself... although this is original research, to cite from articles that claim this, yet bear the burden of proof themselves is a rediculous statement. The bill of rights says parliament can make law on the condition that the queen is being served who intern must serve the general people according to coronation oath. -Stalin was a politician, Socrates was a general individual... I believe we've learned to put rational first over authority. -It's not for the many to be concerned with what a few people believe... up until the point they are using indoctrination tactics; parliamentary sovereignty is a "doctrine"... it's claimed to be ultimate... notice the words "indoctrinate" and "doctrine"... it's as though parliament depends on the media in order to have status. -The rich would have clear advantage over the poor and would be acting within their own favour more towards acting within their own favour... since this indoctrination process has been going on it's more or less the case within modern times. -People within this article have abused all the rules to primarily get to where it is now... to some extent wikipedia holds value to much of the populous... but it's a wonder why schools refuse the usage of wikipedia when this behaviour goes on. -Seeing from other posts here there even appears to be intimination tactics upon people who have not read the rules yet arguably there is hypocracy on both sides. -Thomas Jefferson quotes democracy as mob rule... many other famous individuals have a say... it's not that we don't have democracy it's that it follows regulations. -There is a conflict with contract law when it comes to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. -How can a building even be "a sovereign"... the idea makes no sense. -Corporations are a legal fiction. -False imprisonment is also at possibility. -Conflict with humans rights -Conflict with maxims of law... For instance; "A case of first impression" <- A court proceeding in black's dictionary that requests judges to allow a case to be heard that is more fundamental to the case in question itself for the individual to prove this and for the judge to show how the individual is wrong if they can. -We don't live in communist china. -Faith is what many people turn to when they don't have answers... it's a well known primitive aspect of humanity. -Most people haven't read all the constitutional documents and they'd like a simple sales pitch from someone on the news to tell it for them and lying isn't uncommon in politics. Also this conflicts with the common law principle... ignorance is no defence of the law. -If a politician was to commit treason by repealing the law of treason (which parliamentary sovereignty would be same), and they had trained the police to commit mis-prison of treason (while also repealing this)... to what would people have to defend themselves. Despite historians have well pointed out how dumb of a move this is for individuals in the past... they lived their lifes in fear and had to manage people 12/7 when they could have had true freedom... just getting on with life and manage yourself (or atleast on small scale). -The concept of opening a door for someone to have absolute power over other individuals is a job application attrictive to psychopaths... you'd have to be a masochist to want this in real terms... and many masochists and psychopaths might live by a life of reason of seeing how this shouldn't be imposed upon the many. -We're not ruled by ideas, atleast this concept is known as brainwashing. -The who concept is flawed in that parliament doesn't actually work... I'm saying in context that... they wouldn't in layman's "be doing a job"... they'd be collecting taxes (people's money) to spend for themselves... I think if I was aware of this I'd say something to the people because you'd be in dire need of help if you believed I should work for free for a job... (and let's be honest) is looking at too big of a scale that I'd ask for people to take more responsibity on themselves.

I could go on. I can only go so far before saying to someone that they're idea is super dumb on the basis I think they don't actually know what it entails. I'm just gonna leave this here for a while. If I have offended you, 1. you or someone put your believe out there to be attacked, this is the internet. 2. parliament -> means to speak mean... this is how real politics works. I should be getting paid for writing this... add that to the list aswell... exploitation on people who take life more seriously and find solutions themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.157.192 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Another and last point... Wisdom is the absence of knowledge and doctrines and hence can't be put on wikipedia... I can't remotely say Wisdom is our constitution at to which it's what changes people's minds more fundamentally in politics (either that more make-believe doctrines) in which through rational argument it's most probably the case of influence... this is partially a problem with wikipedia policy aswell of no Original Research or atleast no section within an article for general debated viewpoints. So yeah, damned if you do read the news, damned if you don't if parliamentary sovereignty is taken seriously. Preceding comment added by 90.220.157.192 (talk) 16:57, 28