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 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.