You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).
A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it.
If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
Not exactly. If there's enforcement, it will be done by other actors in the system will cooperate to enforce those "customs and principles." There's no appealing to some higher authority for enforcement (and especially not criminal law, which would be a lower authority).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
It makes the constitution some abstract thing, rather than a very factual set of rules, which you want the constitution to be.
Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down?
North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?
To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc.
Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
What does ‘right to bear arms’ precisely means? Nobody knows.
> Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
There are millions of different mental interpretations of the US written constitution.
Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best.
I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly.
But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
> a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated
Sounds like you’re thinking of law or code rather than a constitution?
Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
"What happened before" in the UK has for thousands of years favoured (to put it mildly) the incumbent powers-that-be.
Seems like a convenient way to perpetuate inequality.
I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is.
Why does writing it down make it more equal?
The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change.
You suggest:
> The UK constitution is based on precedence.
It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents.
It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated.
Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt.
Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here).
Why not write it down?
Imagine running a project like this.
Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?"
Boss: "We've always used MATLAB."
Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?"
Dev gets bundled into a police van
Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
And as has been said a few times - precedence and literally ‘written down’ are not mutually exclusive - you’re after a red herring by obsessing on the ‘unwritten’ part.
Most legal systems use precedence - the US uses judicial precedence to interpret the constitution - because the written one isn’t usable without it!
More correctly, I believe 'unwritten' is not accurate, since as you point out precedent can be set e.g. in the courts or parliament, and these precendents are written in judgements and Acts. So a more accurate term would be uncodified rather than unwritten, meaning there is no single constitution but an ever-changing collection of precedents. (This isn't to accuse you of inaccuracy - everyone in this thread has used the same inaccurate terms, including me.)
There are pros and cons to a codified constitution. We see some cons in the USA, where the Constitution has become sacred, and changes to it are extremely difficult to achieve. That's a shame, and an artefact of its importance within the partisan politics of the USA. Most other nations have a codified constitution and don't seem to have this issue - at least, not to such a paralysing degree.
Another con is so-called wiki-constitutionalism [0] i.e. the attrition of the utility of the constitution by continually amending it to strengthen and expand the role of government.
One pro of a codified constitution would be to clarify the customs surrounding existing precendents, especially the consequences attendent with flouting them. See proroguement [1]
> > "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
> Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
My larger point was about admitting the possibility of change. If an authority figure says "we do X because we've always done it" then we need a way to challenge that. Personally, I'd prefer that to be written and codified, and open to change. You're quite right to point out that legal precedent provides a way to do this in law, and democracy ostensibly enables that. The thread was about protestors being arrested at ceremonial events; my concern was about silencing the questioning of the status quo and authority, and the deferential manner in which public representatives and protectors have fallen in line. Protest is central to change. Arresting protestors at the recent events is a bad look - it smacks of protecting incumbent power. Quelling protest is something that has historically been done on the say-so of authority figures. I'd prefer that to be consigned to the past.
My smaller (?) point was about monarchic ceremony. Personally I find it extremely distasteful for people [2] in archaic uniform to march into cities across the Commonwealth at the behest of tradition. It's not mere "cosplay" (as someone else here described it), it's emblematic of incumbent power, and a harking back to more authoritarian times.
As for my 'obsessing', I didn't introduce the 'written down' bit, and it feels to me that you're the one obsessing over the status quo. Perhaps we're looking past each other. I see no reason to continue with a non-codified constitution. Apparently you do. We've tried to explain to each other, but clearly we're not getting through. Oh well, we tried!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-constitutionalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr...
[2] Including representatives of state, church, and military throughout the Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_accession_of_C...
(Edited for formatting and clarity.)
The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.