If they do make a single written Constitution, it’s going to be a fucking cluster fuck.
Some cunt will try put in some bullshit preventing independence or taking away rights from certain people or some authoritarian horse shit. It doesn’t matter who is in power. And every time there’s any movement for change or anything I’ll just waive the Constitution people’s faces like it’s some fucking holy book.
It sort of reminds me of the perennial calls for a pledge of allegiance for Britain.
Yeah it’s just reflexive ‘do-somethingism’ which falls apart on contact with our actual constitution I think. I’m not saying the Westminster system is perfect, far from it, but there’s legitimate costs to breaking the logic of the system as it exists too badly. It’s not even clear how you would create a written constitution with the same weight most countries have one for example, by definition it’d be an Act of Parliament which any future Parliament can undo.
The Brexit referendum is another great example of why it’s a bad idea, it had the same constitution-breaking property of creating an effectively binding mandate external to the House of Commons which is something that straight up isn’t meant to exist in the Westminster system - it created massive amounts of destabilisation in its own right that the system was never really designed to cope with, without even getting into the consequences of Brexit itself. Compare that to the Scottish independence referendum which was comparatively less destabilising politically, being conducted by the Scottish government under well-defined delegated authority from Westminster it was not constitution-breaking in the same way.
Thank you, exactly. What a committee would enshrine at this point in history would become the next century of problems to solve.
They’re not about to write it in such a way that it would restrain the state or fix real problems. No American first amendment protecting people from JK Rowling’s lawfare, as if “reputation” is a deference she’s owed and not a reflection of her character. No right to privacy that would prevent mass surveillance or let trans people manage their own medications. You’d wind up with Canada’s “notwithstanding” clause letting the bastards waive whatever rights they please so long as they’re blunt about it.
If he does, I hope he does a better job than the “British Values” nonsense that Boris Johnson and co inflicted upon us.
I worked as a lecturer when that came out. Every course now needed to explain how it teaches “British Values”. I taught programming.
“In this topic, to demonstrate the value of Tolerance, I discuss how some people prefer to indent with tabs and some with spaces. I explain that, despite often being a point of contention amongst programmers, both are equally valid approaches.”
And who read those things? I’m sure absolutely no-one.
Having to treat tab indentation and space indentation as equally valid is diabolical
There is a British Constitution. It’s just not all in one document.
The British Constitution is as-built documentation, not all that diligently maintained.
Already got one it’s called the law
The general premise is advisable… just not while this spate of dipshits are in charge.
You’d wind up with anti-trans bigotry as a bloody heirloom, like the US’s talking about liberty and rights and slavery.
You’d rather it done under the tories or reform I take it then?
> specifically compares transphobia to racism
‘So you’re even further right-wing, huh?’
Do fuck off.
My point was you said good idea but not under this government, those are the other two feasible alternatives so I was asking if you would rather they did it, as no one else will be in a position to.
I do hate the online “its not perfect so I’m going to throw my toys out the pram and complain so something even a little better doesnt happen”.
Sneering about the trolley problem doesn’t work when don’t is an option. There is no reason this has to happen, right the hell now. It’s not suddenly any more necessary or feasible than it has been in decades past, and it won’t stop being feasible once all these pricks are seen as archaic. You can and will do better than this. Set things in stone… then.
Do you think the Attlee, Wilson or Blair governments were perfect, should they have not pushed through reforms because they weren’t?
Why should this governments less than perfect stance on trans rights stop them pushing for defining the role of local governments more clearly, or moving to a better voting system? Should Blair not have done devolution for Wales and Scotland, or removing most of the hereditary lords because he didn’t push though total gay marriage equality?
Insisting on waiting for perfection to do anything is a tool of those who don’t want anything to change and benefit from the status quo.
Do it piecemeal. No need for an overarching document.
This is not a “reform.” This is a foundational change. Anything done here will either be really goddamn difficult to undo - or it’s missing the point of doing it.
And obviously doing it is not necessary for any of the positive changes you can rattle off.
So kindly take any further false dichotomies between ‘we must do this specific massive change now now now’ versus ‘you don’t want anything to change ever again,’ and eat them.
