The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[chrisp65]

Yep, because writing all of a constitution in one document stops court cases as different people could no longer interpret different clauses in different ways.

There’s never any grey area or dispute or new twist or exceptional circumstance once something has been written down, as every lawyer and politician will tell you.

That’s that sorted.

Next.

[snowychap]

32 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

If we had one, we would know exactly when and for how long the parliament could go into a sit down.

Would we? Just how long are you proposing this document to be?

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Would we? Just how long are you proposing this document to be?

I'm not a constitutional expert. Most countries have a written document between 20-30k words (quick Google search) which tries to give guidelines in precisely these situations - crossing of legislature and judiciary. 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

My dentist told me today his gloves are going up from £4 to £9 after Brexit!!

[cyrusr]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I'm not a constitutional expert. Most countries have a written document between 20-30k words (quick Google search) which tries to give guidelines in precisely these situations - crossing of legislature and judiciary. 

 

Even then, there are vast amount of court cases defining the way people interpret the law. 

Take the Supreme Court, whilst the country has its eyes on it this week, it has determined 40 cases this year in which analysis of how cases and laws are dealt with. That doesn’t include the vast array that the Court of Appeal and High Court deal with both in first instance and on appeal. Throughout the country, guidance is being given as to how to interpret the law.

Even with a written constitution, that doesn’t go away. You only need to look to America to consider their process in determining how they interpret their written constitution. All your issues around abortion could change any day because the new court could determine Roe v Wade is no longer right.

We don’t have a written constitution because we don’t need one. We haven’t had a revolution or a war where you can start the way you govern from scratch, which is where the written rules come about in most scenarios. As part of the way the UK has developed, power has diverted from the king/queen to parliament that we see today. It has been a steady process, with Magna Carta, the civil war, getting rid of catholic kings, to taking it away from “mad ones” all part of that process. What we are seeing is possibly another part of that process. 

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I'm not a constitutional expert. Most countries have a written document between 20-30k words (quick Google search) which tries to give guidelines in precisely these situations - crossing of legislature and judiciary.

I don't think you understood the point being made, i.e. to go in to the level of detail that you said would be the case - 'we would know exactly when and for how long the parliament could go into a sit down' - would suggest the need for a document of much, much greater length than 20-30k words.

 

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Even then, there are vast amount of court cases defining the way people interpret the law. 

Take the Supreme Court, whilst the country has its eyes on it this week, it has determined 40 cases this year in which analysis of how cases and laws are dealt with. That doesn’t include the vast array that the Court of Appeal and High Court deal with both in first instance and on appeal. Throughout the country, guidance is being given as to how to interpret the law.

Even with a written constitution, that doesn’t go away. You only need to look to America to consider their process in determining how they interpret their written constitution. All your issues around abortion could change any day because the new court could determine Roe v Wade is no longer right.

We don’t have a written constitution because we don’t need one. We haven’t had a revolution or a war where you can start the way you govern from scratch, which is where the written rules come about in most scenarios. As part of the way the UK has developed, power has diverted from the king/queen to parliament that we see today. It has been a steady process, with Magna Carta, the civil war, getting rid of catholic kings, to taking it away from “mad ones” all part of that process. What we are seeing is possibly another part of that process. 

Absolutely - American constitution might not be the best example as that's only 4k words long.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution - I'm saying it would have built some guidelines in precisely these sort of situations. Not that it would answer all questions!

[Mic09]

17 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think you understood the point being made, i.e. to go in to the level of detail that you said would be the case - 'we would know exactly when and for how long the parliament could go into a sit down' - would suggest the need for a document of much, much greater length than 20-30k words.

 

Not really. A theoretical consitution might give 2/3 kinds of situations of when a prorogation might take place and it might state exactly how long for.

That will take 50/100 words.

I'd advise having a read through a few consitutions (not really exciting I know haha!) But they are like reading rules in a board game. Very to the point and simple, and should there be dispute, that's when courts come in.

And again, I'm not saying it would "fix" everything. It's just an advantage of having one.

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I don't think you understood the point being made, i.e. to go in to the level of detail that you said would be the case - 'we would know exactly when and for how long the parliament could go into a sit down' - would suggest the need for a document of much, much greater length than 20-30k words.

We could get @A'Villan to write it

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, because writing all of a constitution in one document stops court cases as different people could no longer interpret different clauses in different ways.

There’s never any grey area or dispute or new twist or exceptional circumstance once something has been written down, as every lawyer and politician will tell you.

That’s that sorted.

Next.

Has anyone said a written consitution will fix everything?

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

Has anyone said a written consitution will fix everything?

I think it could except it wouldn’t.

I never said everything I just think that if we did write it down it would fix all of it.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Not really. A theoretical consitution might give 2/3 kinds of situations of when a prorogation might take place and it might state exactly how long for.

That will take 50/100 words.

The FTPA (a recent example of an attempt to codify a specific, new constitutional practice) is about 1260 words long (section 3 dealing solely with dissolution is 286 words). This act does not cover anything that happens in the 14 day period and has had as many legal and political blogs written about what may, may not, should and should not happen than anyone would ever probably have imagined.

My point is not that someone can't or shouldn't argue for a codified constitution but that it isn't necessarily the panacea that it is purported to be by supporters and that if you're going to argue for it then you need to have a clear picture of the kind of document that you want, i.e. is it just to be an overarching document setting out the ground rules (which could be a relatively short document) or is it something that is going to lay down specific, tight rules for all envisaged constitutional practices (such as various reasons and exact timeframes for prorogations) in which case it may well end up being quite a lengthy tome.

What you can't do is just claim that a written document would have outlined some rules for this case when this case and the circumstances which have led to it probably wouldn't have been envisaged when the document itself was being written. And you can't also use one particular occurrence to make the case for this single document and yet dismiss other issues that having this codified constitution may have caused.

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

should there be dispute, that's when courts come in

I'm glad that you yourself accept that there would be disputes even with codified constitutions and that courts would then be asked to decide the matter in those cases.

 

[ml1dch]

Quote

 

Boris Johnson’s nightmare in Luxembourg was more than just a public embarrassment delivered at the hands of the Grand Duchy’s Xavier Bettel.

The FT this morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop. 

According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.

At that point, a befuddled Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you're telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?” 

The exchange, according to one EU official, was part of an abrupt “learning curve” for Johnson in his first face-to-face meeting with Barnier and Juncker since he took office.

Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him. “He wasn’t used to hearing it”, added the official.

Juncker told his college of commissioners in Strasbourg yesterday that the Luxembourg lunch was the first time that “Boris Johnson understood the meaning of the single market”.  A Number 10 official rejected descriptions of the lunch as “nonsense”.

 

https://ep.ft.com/permalink/emails/eyJlbWFpbCI6ImZmOTMwMjQ4MTE4MGI3NmMxYzY2MzkyY2YyNmNkYzcyYWIxOGJmMmU4NjU4IiwidHJhbnNhY3Rpb25JZCI6ImExZWNjM2UxLTkzNDQtNGYwNS05MWU5LWMzM2VjZWM4YzA4ZiJ9

[bickster]

And Hilary Benn's response to that...

 

[Genie]

There's a lot of Brexit preparation messages now on TV and radio. Also on motorway matrix signs. What on earth can they say? Its happening in 6 weeks apparently, but we still don't know what 'it' is.

Absolute final, final decision should be made maximum of 3 months before actual leave date to allow preparations to happen. Incredible situation we've been lead into.

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, Genie said:

There's a lot of Brexit preparation messages now on TV and radio. Also on motorway matrix signs. What on earth can they say? Its happening in 6 weeks apparently, but we still don't know what 'it' is.

Absolute final, final decision should be made maximum of 3 months before actual leave date to allow preparations to happen. Incredible situation we've been lead into.

The motorway matrix sign one is particularly helpful.

'There may be changes to paperwork on November 1st.'

Ah great, thanks for sorting that, I know what I'm doing now.

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The motorway matrix sign one is particularly helpful.

'There may be changes to paperwork on November 1st.'

Ah great, thanks for sorting that, I know what I'm doing now.

You have to feel sorry for the poor sods who have been told to give the advice. If the bloke in charge doesn't know what's happening, and the team working for him don't. The Queen doesn't, the supreme court doesn't, the EU doesn't either. How can anybody possibly offer advise on what to do ahead of the 1st November?

It just pours fuel on the fire. Not only is it a major f**k up, we're now wasting millions of pounds on advice for something we don't have any idea is going to happen.

[desensitized43]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

You have to feel sorry for the poor sods who have been told to give the advice. If the bloke in charge doesn't know what's happening, and the team working for him don't. The Queen doesn't, the supreme court doesn't, the EU doesn't either. How can anybody possibly offer advise on what to do ahead of the 1st November?

It just pours fuel on the fire. Not only is it a major f**k up, we're now wasting millions of pounds on advice for something we don't have any idea is going to happen.

Not to mention the fact they're actively advertising the fact that someone is intending to break the law... 

[Genie]

I come back from Spain on 28/10... hopefully I don't get stuck in my 4* all inclusive resort

[Mic09]

31 minutes ago, Genie said:

There's a lot of Brexit preparation messages now on TV and radio. Also on motorway matrix signs. What on earth can they say? Its happening in 6 weeks apparently, but we still don't know what 'it' is.

Absolute final, final decision should be made maximum of 3 months before actual leave date to allow preparations to happen. Incredible situation we've been lead into.

Just be ready. Stay aware - keep an eye out. It might be different, it might not. Just brace yourself.

Surely that's clear enough?

Btw, I hope that the government is heavily scrutinised for the money spent on these messages should Brexit not happen. Absolutely pathetic.