Does Britain need a written constitution after Brexit?

[@JoeMarine]

It is so wrong that children are not taught about the govt in schools.

[@sopmodo8122]

The state shouldn't exist.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

@@seang2700 Where did you get that idea? There is also what is know as His-tory Classes.The problem with that is pseudo His-tory is what is thought if His-tory is thought at all. England History is full the evolution of Rights & Protections which GOVERNMENTS could never give or protect. Because it is GOVERNMENTS who tries to subvert Rights & Protections with BENEFITS & PRIVILEGES! This video is such an important subject -yet few will grasp the ramifications of England's glorious Constitution! Not for the STRAWMAN fate -Only Men Women & Children need apply.

[@jibjub2121]

@@sopmodo8122 a great argument if you're 14 years old.

[@KonstantBillsAivisuals]

Goverment and importance of personal finance.

[@austinjames60]

You don’t learn about your government in the UK? I’m from Tennessee and we had to learn about Tennessee Culture, US Govt. and British History which includes an understanding of how your government operates and is like and different from ours.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

The Magna Carta was really ahead of its time

[@futurunnerxiii6618]

Magna Carta make a global standart, thx Brit, love from Poland.

[@peterdavidson3268]

Does Britain need a written constitution after Brexit? Absolutely - the entire Brexit debacle has merely served to expose the rotten core of Britain's governance framework - Brexit is just one [very big and obvious] symptom of this much deeper malaise - it is HOW the UK is governed [or perhaps we should say misgoverned] that has acted as the primary source of public angst and hostility arising from Brexit inspired discourse. In short, Brexit was made right here in the UK - a large majority of those voting Leave in 2016 did so because they had been systematically marginalised, economically, socially and politically, for decades by the UK's broken governance structure - ALL votes counted in the EU Referendum so the masses who correctly viewed their voices as meaningless and/or ignored were not going to pass up their once in a lifetime opportunity to send a very deliberate message to residents of the Westminster Bubble! The only long-term, credible and sustainable solution to the present stalemate, set in motion by the 2016 plebiscite, is a UK-wide Constitutional Convention, founded on a Citizens’ Assembly platform. The remit of this potential road to National salvation should not be restricted to the relatively narrow topic of Brexit, despite its obvious resonance in these troubled times. Citizens must be the focus of strategies designed to reshape the manner in which the UK governs itself - a subject requiring a more holistic approach and broader terms of reference to encompass, not least; • The potential role of a succinct, formal codified, ie. written down, UK Constitution capable of engaging all citizens, replete with Court to interpret its meaning? • The influence of voting systems on our elected institutions and whether First Past the Post is really past its sell by date in our more nuanced, complex society? • Meaningful and effective dispersal of political power, away from Westminster, perhaps through the prospect of a Federal Britain, constituted from an array of relatively large, robust, semi-autonomous sub-UK entities, rather than the sham versions on offer to much of provincial England right now? • Replacing the House of Lords with an upper chamber [or Senate] accurately representing the constituent Regions and Nations of the United Kingdom? • An adult conversation about the identity and role of the UK's head of state? • and many others issues of profound constitutional import? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant on-line resources www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/constitutions-and-constitution-making/designing-constitutional-convention citizensassembly.co.uk unlockdemocracy.org/written-constitution www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/electoral-reform federalunion.org.uk/uk news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883944.stm

[@AndrewGlasgow2020]

Yes, of course we need a written constitution. "Flexibility" just means uncertainty and too much power to the legal system, which is not democratic. Of course, there will also be a system for changing it; all countries have that! I suspect, once we see it written down that we will be horrified to discover how our country is governed!

[@fidomusic]

The most depressing part of this was the Hansard poll which found that 54% wanted a strong leader who would break the rules. A certain Austrian comes to mind.

[@sopmodo8122]

Slavery was once in the Brazilian constitution. So, does the constitution validate it?

[@mjag2834]

Hitler was an Emmisary of Satan not a Leader.

[@rogersteppens8025]

Charley Chaplin wasn’t Austrian But he did have a little black square on his top lip

[@ddoumeche]

Ever heard of the gordian knot ?

[@thecrow4840]

Yeah because Britain is full of Nazi Brexiteers...isn't it now🙈

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

0:15 The Problems with BREXIT has got nothing to do with our Constitution. It is the badly written STATUTES that has exposed the weaknesses of PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION.

[@ChristianIce]

It needed a constitution before, and what it doesn't need is monarchs and lords.

[@bsul03420]

ChristianIce Unfortunately, a written constitution still doesn't guarantee democracy - look at the situation in USA politics. It's every bit as messed up as ours in the UK.

[@lionelwhiskerknot]

@@bsul03420 Agreed. In the US it simply changed to only the wealthy and the elite getting elected. That is not a democracy or a republic. The two party system is a disgrace. Wealth needs to be taken out of politics and a cap put on how much can be raised for a election campaign. We need more of the common man in our government. People from the middle class. How can you think your vote matters when the candidates are elite rubbish? There is nothing wrong with our Constitution although the elites have passed laws to cement themselves in power. Heck, the do nothing Congress gets a raise every year. Money out of politics and term limits. The state of California is also an example of corruption as the governor will sign into law what he wants even if the people oppose it.

[@kieranteo9746]

unfortunately, this is wrong. the UK has a constitution. Further, Christian, the lords are a vital part of the law making process. Among many, the lords have committees such as the Constitution Committee that ensure that legislation (primary i.e. parliament made or secondary i.e. government made), is in line with the constitution in general. Also, because the government are not drawn from the lords (whereas they are from the commons), this helps to counterbalance the strength of the government and the commons.

[@notatryhard1521]

Gonna disagree with u there chief

[@truetory6231]

In with a written constitution and out with monarch and lords...sounds to me like somebody wants to impose American values in British politics

[@ehswissie]

Very interesting but the background music is horrendous.

[@dean1039]

It's classical music, how can it possibly be regarded as "horrendous". Uncultured modern Britain at its very finest.

[@kevwhufc8640]

@Nspnspker your not British , so what are you doing commenting on this post ? You ain't the EU, you have nothing to do with any of it, Your an insignificant nobody, without power to affect or change anything. YOUR the ONLY ONE on here thats resorted to swearing & name calling. So do you seriously expect a sensible reply from someone YOU CALLED *retarded ? Go away you ridiculous fool , you have nothing to say that anyone cares about, So be gone now , go shoo

[@kevwhufc8640]

@Ginger you can't read , So what are you doing commenting on this post ?

[@kevwhufc8640]

@Ginger gingers... lol

[@abbofun9022]

The lack of proportional representation seems to me a far bigger issue than the absence of a written constitution

[@1984-x3w]

The UK has a written constitution, suggesting otherwise is fraudulent lies, Fact!

[@spamletspamley672]

As with most things, the solution begins with 'not starting from here'. :/ While Parties have total control, it would be disastrous to hand over more power to any government, and, while Parties are allowed to control Parliament itself, there really is no difference between Government and Parliament, so giving more power to Parliament gets us nowhere until the Party stranglehold on Democracy is removed. :/ Same goes for the US, where George Washington perfectly warned about the situation we are now in, in his retiring address letter. Washington warned, that if parties were allowed into the system, the end result would be a tyrant seizing power with the aid of foreign competitor states. He got it exactly right.

[@jibjub2121]

So you advocate replacing representative democracy with direct democracy? Why?

[@jaredgarbo3679]

@@jibjub2121 It's not really a representative democracy because we use First-Past-The-Post.

[@binfur7047]

Turn off music

[@ParcelOfRogue]

Yes, definitely! We need a Written Constitution, a Bill of Rights written into International Law that cannot be picked at by right wing and other governments, an elected Upper House to replace the Lords and proper PR voting, not AV, which is not proportional.

[@johnfrankiss6396]

Dude, we have a bill of rights. Its the one the 13 colonies copied. May I suggest a little reading around the subject.

[@samrowbotham8914]

We have a Constitution and anyone tampering with it as you want to do is committing sedition. No one can change the structure of Parliament without committing High Treason which you are suggesting should happen. What a shame that children have been taught nothing about England's Constitution because it's the best one in the world.

[@ParcelOfRogue]

@@johnfrankiss6396 Yes, but it is threatened now and needs to be structured so (right wing) governments cannot meddle with it.

[@ParcelOfRogue]

@@samrowbotham8914 Nonsense, the constitution changes with precedent without anyone committing treason. We need a written constitution so that people can understand it with having to go to court to find out

[@samrowbotham8914]

@@ParcelOfRogue The nonsense is all owned by you and its clear you do not understand how the Constitution came about or works. The Constitution is sacrosanct no one can change it willy nilly, our forefathers built checks and balances into our system of governance knowing if they broke down we would be living under tyranny which is where we are now with the will of the people being denied and violated. Can you tell me the difference between a Constitutional Parliament and an ordinary Parliament because even most people who have spent their time practicing Law do not know!

[@ronaldderooij1774]

The Netherlands has a written constitution (although judges cannot rule on it). Because of Brexit, my son an I had a discussion on where the sovereignty of the Dutch people lie. After hours of searching, we have not found it. It hovers somewhere between the Dutch people, the Dutch King, the Dutch government, Dutch parliament and the EU. I am all in favor of a written constitution, but really, some things are better to leave unwritten. The only thing that was clear, was that the EU does not have sovereignty. It lends the member states' sovereignty for as long as the member states allow it. That is why I am opposed to European Parliamentary elections. That does not fit the concept of the EU. Although generally I am very pro EU.

[@cherubin7th]

England is only allowed to leave because the EU law has an option to leave, not because it is sovereign.

[@emm_arr]

Wrong.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

3:32 The problem we have with People's Sovereignty is trust. We trust PARLIAMENT ON A FIVE YEAR BASIS to act as proxy in our Sovereign best interest. But for many centuries now we see our best interest ignored for special interest. Five years is too long to wait to remove PARLIAMENT when it goes off the reservation and betray us. we need many things to be changed with the current proxy arrangement. the abuse has reached a record high blatancy.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

I approve of a written Constitution. The following Provisions must also be enshrined into the constitution of the UK: 1. Parliment shall enact no law respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the free excercise thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state oh, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 3. No Soldier shall be quartered in any home without the consent of the owner during a time of Peace, nor during a time of War except in a manner to be prescribed by law. 4.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5. The prime minister is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. 6. The Monarch shall not be exempt from prosecution for violation of laws enacted by Parliament. 7. The Monarch shall have no political power and shall only have ceremonial power as delegated by Parliament.

[@daniel_kryz]

No, the right to bear arms should not be enshrined in the constitution. Countries don't need to allow guns to be free... it needs to keep them out of people's (and criminal's) hands, except when they're at a shooting range or of course if they are law enforcement, and even then the goal should be to eventually have a peaceful society where only specialized officers have guns.

[@dac4710]

An advisory referendum is the same as a public opinion poll as a non-legal vote. The biggest problem it that a government does not need an advisory vote to leave or join the EU so we may be coming and going from the EU every time there is a change in government. If the government does want to leave the EU they should have got elected to leave the EU then had a referendum on the deal that would be two legal votes on two legal deals. This is the same as going on holiday one vote on the intention one on the legal deal this is common sense or common law. Make the government work to common law as everyone else has too then there won't be one law for the people and another for the government.

[@shaungb-9728]

Leave or remain the damage done by Brexit will affect our politics for years to come. I believe it is time we need a written constitution.

[@carolberry2239]

In South Africa we have an excellent constitution. It is based on deep human values..which is essential. the American one is based on superficial rights..thats not the same thing. Britains is too open to interpretation..that added to the way that MPs are elected..same as America leaves it too open to abuse and is NOT democratic in essence. This is already part of the problem. Watching the British Parliament at work is excruciating..a bun fight all the time. The opposition has no power, except to shout, and occasionally vote. Our opposition MPs do have power and serve to balance the excesses of the ruling party. Without our constitution we would be toast. In essence it is simple enough for everyone to understand. It can be changed but only with a 2/3 majority in parliament. All new laws are tested against the constitution which gives us the comfort that human values cannot be trampled on. For me, Brexit has trampled on people who live and work in the UK because there are no human checks and balances that a constitution brings. The same goes for how employees and poor people are dealt with...but thats a longer story...but its about humanity protected by a constitution.

[@theRealJohnErtel]

In south africa they are taking land away from private land owners based on acts of government... doesn't really seem like the constitution is protecting them or that minority power has been able to balance the excess.

[@hansiesma16]

carol berry yes on paper your constitution is marvellous but in reality that is absolutely where it ends.

[@sjenner76]

The U.S. Constitution, founded on a robust corpus of English precedent and common law, is operating well. It is, in fact, the most ancient of all written constitutions. Some 230 years on, it still provides strong and clear rules and limitations on government authority. Contrary to the learned Justice’s opinion, it is not malfunctioning. Quite the opposite. Society in general is more rancorous, but that’s not the issue (nor the prerogative of either the U.S. or English constitutions). Rather, the question is whether they provide clear, stable and constituent results and governance that appropriately balance the political and exercise of power against the individual and the rights of the individual. The U.S. Constitution is doing precisely that. At this juncture, the tottering mass of the unwritten English Constitution is not.

[@argleplonidge5838]

He is wrong to claim that Magna Carta gave rights to everyone. The definition of the term 'free man' used in the Magna Carta is actually quite restrictive. The vast majority were peasants, and they were not 'free men'. They were effectively the property of the Lords and Barons etc. As for the Constitution, a written one creates as many new problems as it solves.

[@1984-x3w]

All true except we do have a written constitution this a establishment lie told by subversively by politicians / media to sweep our rights under the rug!

[@positionnormal]

I like the way he wears the same jumper in lots of different places

[@richard-gn3es]

Haha so true

[@Sarcastix7]

He would stand out in a crowd anyway

[@tonycox8587]

Very interesting, but essentially irrelevant if we stay in the EU. The commentator seemed rather horrified that the US.Supreme court could overturn any law, but since the 1990s, our laws can similarity be overridden by the ECJ. With the UK parliament increasingly becoming marginalized in its role as a “rubber stamp” for eu directives, why waste time formalizing our constitution? It will simply be ignored by the superior legal order of the EU.

[@tonycox8587]

The Confederate states thought that also... Anyway, if the UK does free itself from the continental yoke, then it better have a written constitution, because there are several r km things in the fundamental rights document which need to be imported (and several more that we can do without. What the heck is the right to family life doing in there, and what the f*** is it supposed to mean, anyway )

[@gabrielabdul8372]

Everyone knows Britain will never leave Europe. Politicians are smart, they know the consequences but ordinary citizens absolutely they can not understand it. In modern time all countries need each other whether its security, economy and other aspects. We don't live in 18th century!

[@gabrielabdul8372]

The problem with ordinary people is reading too much Daily Mail and Telegraph

[@DavidSmith-ip6tk]

Don Jose we can cooperate without being ruled by beaurocrats we cannot remove. I demand democracy.

[@gabrielabdul8372]

@@DavidSmith-ip6tk but sometimes the people are brainwashed to believe what will cause bad consequences.

[@WaterisbetterH20]

so smart they decided to allow the dumbies decided with a referendum?

[@richardramsbotham5993]

The whole system needs to be completely rethought - which doesn't just mean fixing a few people's dictates into a new constitution - a nightmare scenario! - but demands a genuine questioning about sane and healthy ways forward - plenty of which could be found if it was decided that enough is enough with the current way of things - and serious, truth-seeking, unbiassed questions were asked - with an openness to finding new answers.

[@solosulla9648]

Anyone can demand change, anyone can suggest we progress in a "sane and healthy way" - the reality is, everyone has a different perspective, a different idea of what constitutes sane and healthy, such a suggestion is a gourmet recipe for violence and further division, there is no such thing as "the British people", there are only individuals possessed by their respective ideologies. That is to say nothing of the fact that the UK is made up of more than just England, we have the rest of the union to consider, the more political parties involved, the more complicated the matter becomes. You say plenty of the abundant alternative systems that are to be found, yet you suggest none, I don't see any easy solution... You chastise the "current way of things" and characterise this hypothetical transformation of our constitution as simply searching for answers in an open, unbiased manner; yet, history shows us time and time again that constitutional change usually comes from civil war, if not that, then it causes one! A situation where those different perspectives I mentioned decide to kill each other to decide which is superior, obviously no truth is found in this process, only the physically stronger party. How could the whole system be rethought by the entire mass of a population?! Even the Athenian Democracy was created by a few individuals(Solon and Cleisthenes mainly) The only way to commit such ideas to paper would be to select a relatively small group of people to do the job, I'm certainly not educated in statecraft and politics, I doubt you are either, we would require experts! And ultimately, in a time of great stress(The Peloponnesian War) Athens, in the year 404BCE, taught us a valuable lesson about total democracy, when challenged with matters beyond their comprehension, people vote for stupid courses of action. The options left to us then would be a popular revolution in which we hand the country over to the public to pen the constitution, good luck finding a consensus when taking such an enormous gamble! Or we have parliament do the job for us which is like asking a murderer to decide his own prison sentence! In short, the matter isn't a simple one. Can I ask, are you a revolutionary?

[@richard-gn3es]

Are you trying to say a centuries old system is not fit for the current time and current problems? Perhaps we all need to look at why we follow what everyone can agree is a broken system that works for very few people

[@mum2jka]

I don't know what the answer is. The US are hung up on their constitution. And sometimes a simple majority in a referendum is enough. What the error was with Brexit was the government/parliament being blinded by the idea of it then believing it has no choice but to implement it. Then the people being told - and repeating it - that the referendum was an act of democracy when it wasn't at all. But to have a written constitution...wouldn't that be tying politicians hands behind their backs and being unable to move?

[@rehorekMichal]

Hmm. The video incorrectly suggests that once the constitution in written down it basically cannot be changed... The constitution can be always modified, but it is more rigid (e.g. in Czechia 3/5 of all members of the lower house and 3/5 of the present members of the upper house are required to change the constitution). Moreover, courts can still interpret the constitution or sometimes even change it (take the US where multiple courts can interpret the constitution, or again Czechia where we have the Constitutional court for that very reason). I was expecting more from the video...

[@pinchermartyn3959]

C4 News is pro EU and biased that's why.

[@peterbarber3875]

Britain needs a better electoral system more than it needs a constitution. Mixed Member Proportional Representation is a better system, proven for many years in Germany and New Zealand.

[@MrDavidJMa]

Of course it needs a written constitution instead of a series of archaic conventions that can be widely interpreted. Add to that the repeal of the FTPA.

[@MASSIF101]

FTPA? or FPTP?

[@MrDavidJMa]

@@MASSIF101 Fixed Term Parliament Act

[@MrDavidJMa]

@Albert Pike We need a UK constitution is what I have written.

[@leodouskyron5671]

I don’t think the form is the issue that caused the Brexit debacle. It is certain you should write it down so everyone can see it in-one place but no the actual referendum was the issue. First it was non-binding and was treated like it was binding. Second, the lies made understanding what to vote difficult (as I was hearing). Third, it had no actionable plan attached. Lastly you made it majority rules. That last one was maybe the worst. You did go into the EU with a proper 65% thus gaining rights and citizenship. But you left with 51.X%. So you had a swing of about 15% and you wonder why it all went pear shaped. You should well have borrowed a page from us this time. Make it a super majority or make it so it must carry in each kingdom of the UK. Either of these things keeps the U in UK and forces the side that wants to make the change to have solid reasoning that gets most everyone on board and that is what a 66% vote does. But you can’t do that with your “flexible” constitutional system? Of course you could - you have the tools. Just next time be careful to keep United. And don’t let this bring you down. - with my prayers for your success as an ugly American :)

[@pinchermartyn3959]

We didn't go into EU. That didn't exist. That's the whole point of Brexit. We joined a cricket club as it were, EEC, and then it turned into a football club that nobody voted for or wanted, EU, a federalists political project, created by people who nobody voted for or can get rid of, but only by a referendum which we've done. We were duped years ago and we've no seen it right by Brexit.

[@ThomasTheWankEngine1]

What's this "BREXIT" thing going on? It hasn't in anyway happened yet and the UK has no Constitution as it is not codified.

[@themightyduck562]

Brexit is/was (certainly at the time of the comment being written) an ongoing process, not a one-and-done thing. It’s been going on since 2016. On top of that, the UK absolutely *does* have a constitution. It’s simply *partially* uncodified.

[@Andrew-hv2xx]

Great videos channel 4. Keep them coming

[@kevkev0210]

with the benefit of hindsight, if constitutional changes are to be approved under supermajority, Brexit would not be pursued in the first place.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

1:15 Sorry Channel 4 yet again it is often what is not being said than what is...that is most important The Magna Carta 1215 by the infamous King John -though the foundation of the story pails in comparison -its future historical developments of Magna Cartas -is the jewel in the crown or thorns in the side of those who seek supremacy. The Magna Carta 1215 which you speak of has no baring in Common Law standing, having been force upon King John by his Barons under duress and is therefore Null n Void. When such Magna Carta is spoken of, it can only be referred to the MAGNA CARTA 1215 and must also be said for clarity that it was later codified into the STATUTES OF PARLIAMENT of which is an entirely different jurisdiction and meaning. Furthermore much of it has been repealed over the years by PARLIAMENT. Hence you can be misled to think that the Magna Carta story ends there; depending on who who talk to. I ask you what happens when someone comes out of a long coma? Well BREXIT has somewhat awaken Common Law with Boris Johnson saga. However with all comas, requires many adjustments. To Fully Leave the EUROPEAN UNION PROJECT is to also fully return to Common Law. There is no if or but about it. But currently that is not what is happening. Currently Common Law is half asleep and half awake.

[@THE16THPHANTOM]

we(as teens) used to complain that the EU actually follows British Law. British Law was EU Law, not the other way around. like the Rammstein song, replace America with UK. if i could tell naive past me, the British actually despised the EU at the time and wanted to GTFO. i mean it was pretty clear from the way the UK representatives talked to the other EU members, but that just reinforced the idea that we are all living in the UK at that time.

[@jackeentwee]

Why the need for music at this volume? It is extremely annoying.

[@garydansie6625]

We definitely need a written constitution! It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a good start!

[@bakerkawesa]

Just adopt a written constitution. No need to complicate things.

[@douglasgibb6943]

The guy's argument around 7:07 makes no sense. You could force it to be reviewed regularly. All you'd need to do is insert a clause saying something like, 'Every third year a Constitutional Convention shall be held, where any proposed amendments to this document can be made, considered, accepted or rejected, as provided for by an Act of Parliament.' It could work like the Irish Citizens' Assembly. Although there might be some merit in exanding its membership from 100 to 150-200, I think it is really good start for discussing such fundemental issues.

[@theRealJohnErtel]

It seems the ultimate point of this video is that a new constitution is needed to protect the UK from democracy???? We must have the people vote on a new constitution so that parliament can protect the people from the will of the people??? it seems like the hidden meaning of this video is 'we don't like that people got to express their will through a democratic vote on brexit, so now we must have a new constitution so that parliament can make sure the people do not have a voice.' PS - Newsflash: If there are more referenda now then there used to be, it means that parliament is not representing the will of the people. The only need for referenda is for people to vote for things the government refuses to represent them in doing.

[@TorianTammas]

John Ertel - The only reason there was a non binding referendum was that a Tory PM wanted to silence Tory who hates the EU and to kill of the UKIP party. The Tory PM had never any intent to give the people any power nor leave the EU. He used the people to get rid of his enemies. It did not work as he planned. So the Tories will never ever give the people any form of real choice or power.

[@Bobbydyland]

Do we need a written constitution? No. Perfect example of why not is the US, who treats it's constitution as some sort of immovable sacred text that can't change. Brexit is evidance that our consitution needs more flexability, not less.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

0:09 There is a lot of confusion and speaking out of context shown here. It can be observe that the Men and Women in PARLIAMENT has lost the Jurisprudence on the subject in failure to recognise that PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT resides outside Common Law Jurisdiction. The context is crucial to understand. That PARLIAMENT has no basis or relevance to be speaking of the Common Law Constitution which it clearly is, except from a Man or Woman perspective and PARLIAMENT is neither the platform or Jurisdiction to give relevance. This is an understanding that has been deliberately denied for a long time and certainly when we joined the EUROPEAN UNION. It is time we all consider that PARLIAMENT was disband by the ancient Monarchy and then reinstated. From that day forwards the Peasants had lost their new formed representative to protect their interest in dealing with the Monarchy. An unspoken alliance was forge to subvert Magna Carta Liberatum 1225 and return Monarchy ruling power by other means. Meaning that once again seen as being above the law. But which law? PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT LAW not common Law. But if Common Law is no longer reachable then how can one address grievance with the Monarchy? Well the Boris Johnson Supreme saga court showed that Common Law is accessible but pretty expensive. So the Great Conspiracy continues. From that unfaithful day PARLIAMENT has spent its entire purpose to undermine and obfuscate the significance or existence of a Jurisdiction more superior to its own. To suppress or distort the Magna Carta story. PARLIAMENT has done all within its available power not to have that understanding thought throughout the Nation as a birthright to such knowledge. Hence the Majority of the Country do not know what the Constitution is or how to discern from the complete utter nonsense by Rees-Mog and Duncan Smith alike. Now if you are to say that PARLIAMENT as an evolution of today's new age is in need of a CONSTITUTION in there CORPORATE weak STATUTE & ACTS JURISDICTION? I would say let us have a real PEOPLES CHARTER -one that truly clean up all the loopholes that forms the vulnerable basis of BRIBERY BLACKMAIL AND ASSASSINATION IN POLITICS. But please leave alone the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights and the Magna Carta Liberatum 1225 The Great Charter of Liberties (by King Henry -King John's son) our renowned written Common Law Constitution -the greatest gift and blessing to the entire planet -if put into use. But also please stop misleading with the Magna Carta 1215 by King John -void under duress of the Barons. In common Law no action is upheld under duress. Or the SAME VOID MAGNA CARTA codified into PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT LAW STATUTE BOOKS. Interestingly PARLIAMENT did not seek to CODIFIED the Magna Carta Liberatum 1225 because that would have been too much of a sting in Supremacy tail. That Charter as it stands today put every Queen, man, woman and child equal under the Common Law and in most instances above PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT LAW. Not surprising it escapes the teaching of Classrooms in the EUROPEAN UNION where the UNITED KINGDOM are yet to escape and the relevance of England Common Law is all but forgotten or disrespected.

[@dianaverano7878]

Im surprised with UK not having a written constitution. We in the Philippines, south east asia, non politicians, ordinary citizens debate on our "new laws" formulated to be passed by our politicians, if those new law only favors the rich & powerful. Because once a new law has been passed, approved and signed by the president, we cant stop that law to be implemented.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

3:11 says who? Here is the muddling displeasure. STATUTE LAW cannot provide CONSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE to Common Law as contrary Common Law cannot provide Constitutional relevance to STATUTE LAW. They are of two separate opposites JURISDICTION/Jurisdiction respectfully. To say otherwise is a Jurisprudence violation. England already has its available to be recognised Constitution ie the Magna Carta Liberatum 1225, the Bill of Rights 1688 etc. Perhaps it is PARLIAMENT who now needs to codify a STATUTE CONSTITUTION for the UNITED KINGDOM. However i am struck by the notion. if STATUTE and Common Law has been adopted as being part of the Constitution then it has been done so in violation of jurisdiction protocols. Our Constitution derives from Common Law Charters and documents standing under Common Law.. But all of this could have nefariously happen back then when Monarchy and PARLIAMENT CALLED A TRUCE AGREEMENT to subvert Common Law and reinstate MONARCHY above the PEASANTS/PEOPLE as we can see and observe in practice today . Ask yourself why is Common Law not openly commonly practice in England? The coup was not televised. The Peasants were too uneducated to notice and future generations are no wiser.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

We in the USA have had a written Constitution that serves as supreme law of the land since the late 1700s. After two and a half centuries, I say it has served us in the USA well.

[@Khasidon]

Write an advosaray constitution that isn't a constitution.

[@lauralishes1]

*NO 1 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH* Which they'll never do.

[@californiadreamin8423]

Laura Walker Is that freedom to lie and incite ?

[@MASSIF101]

We absolutely have freedom of speech. what we don't have, rightfully so, is an obligation that anything can and should be said regardless of context and ramifications. We have learned from history that certain messages should not be entertained for risk of social collapse. You are still free to say such things, but you are also required to take responsibility for them. Freedom of speech ends as soon as the words are out there, everything else is your own responsibility as an intelligent adult.

[@1984-x3w]

Learn the basic basis of common law we have full freedom of speech! By British common law unless you cause harm loss or injury there is no crime this account's for every situation etc. Most consituational law affirms what is criminal (against natural law/ everything else is protected) few constitutional law affirms what you can do by logic. The bill of rights 1689 in the UK constitution is a exception to this.

[@victorspencer9159]

They should have written into it, that when a referendum is given that must honour the result, if they don't charge them with treason

[@eeetee792]

Well article 50 states exactly that. I think by law using article 50 the people could take the whole parliment to court for treason if anything other than a no deal brexit is delivered

[@eeetee792]

@UCmowNoOiu2OXMbJK28Yn9jA it states that the parliment labor torries and the rest must adhere to the peoples vote on the referendum. It was signed shortly after the vote. And as parliment has not honored their signatures (which are a binding legal directive ) then by our law system each an ld eveyone of them is commiting treason

[@carolberry2239]

But also a referendum must be FULLY informed. It was far too rushed.

[@eeetee792]

@@carolberry2239 it was a simple question should we stay or leave the EU

[@eeetee792]

Noone knows the future. Everyone knew it would have consequences one way or the other. Those that chose to leave were prepared to take the gamble. No amount of information which can only be speculative because noone in the whole wide world knows exactly what will happen after brexit. We can only calculate and guess and everyone depending on their biases will have a different guess. It was informed. The question was stay or leave. Problem the same question your former or current partner asks themself

[@samuelbcn]

The plural is REFERENDA! We don't say bacteriums.

[@MASSIF101]

keep fighting the good fight brother

[@Pining_for_the_fjords]

Bacteria is a non-countable noun, neither singular nor plural. Do you say "bacteria is" or "bacteria are"?

[@hansiesma16]

Octopuses

[@samuelbcn]

@@Pining_for_the_fjords Of course it is countable; one bacterium, two bacteria.

[@clancywiggam]

@@samuelbcn Either is acceptable. Good to see you've focused on the real issue here. Also, one sheep, two sheep, three sheep...

[@charliemacintyre4124]

Totally fails to mention that the UK is made of 4 Nations and that Scotland has its own Legal system protected by the Treaty of Union, Westmisnter is not Sovereign over the whole of the UK, in Scotland, the Scottish people are Sovereign. this program to also have done more to explain why the PM was ruled against by the Scotish Courts. As for a written constitution....... with a gov that blatenlty lies and law breaks what guarentee would a constitution make?

[@rashidhackney2431]

Education. Education . Education.. the majority doesn't know our Constitution.

[@kevinallsop5788]

Because we ain't got one silly. We have a codified constitution which is not the same thing. It is made up of Acts of Parliament, Court judgments and conventions. Bercow has driven a coach and horses through the conventions element in the HoC.

[@sopmodo8122]

Slavery was once in the Brazilian constitution

[@emm_arr]

I think voter ignorance is a bigger factor. The number of people who are so poorly informed as to think other viewpoints and policies are "traitorous" shows we have a problem. Voters should not leave school so ignorant because it makes them vulnerable.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Putin is corrupt. Your turn. Show us you're British and not a Russian woman. Dare you!

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al. Putin is corrupt. Your turn!

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al. Putin is corrupt. Your turn. Go on. Are you scared?

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al. Putin is corrupt - and you are scared of him.

[@patriciamargarcia3959]

Fantastic report! Clear understanding and passionate.! More of this please 🙏

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Unwritten constitution is a funny way of saying no constitution.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

Written Constitution exist but derives from Common Law. It applies to the Men & Women in PARLIAMENT not PARLIAMENT itself because PARLIAMENT resides outside the Jurisdiction of Common Law, same for the EUROPEAN UNION.

[@SikanderG]

There should be a written constitution that rules out referenda for almost all issues.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al!

[@The_Robert.Fletcher]

There are just 5 countries without a written constitution, the UK, Canada, NZ, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. What was called a "Referendum" was, in fact, a Plebiscite the latter is an advice to the parliament by the people and the former should be a legislative Bill passed by the people.

[@The_Robert.Fletcher]

@Albert Pike In 1863 an Act was passed to which repealed most of the Great Charter between 1828 and 1969. ref British Library.

[@andylaauk]

You guys Lost, not once, not twice but every single time.

[@Hokie4Life]

andylaauk I’m Irish

[@istnugoed]

The point of a written constitution is that it provides stability and certainty for citizens against untrustworthy politicians and the state. If you still want to change it, you should be able to, but with a proper majority, like 66% and a big quotum of voters to make sure the people are sufficiently on the same page. Same with referenda. Simple majorities can only provide division in the country, as the brexit referendum shows. However, leaving the EU or for example becoming a republic and doing away with the queen are issues that should be dealt with by referendum. These things should not be left to opportunistic party politics of the day, which the people can reverse at any normal election. The written constitution should provide these voting rules, and be able to protect itself in the same manner.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

Why can you not get it in your head that we have a Constitution written and presented in several documents?

[@ViffeNify]

Whats wrong with channel 4 news? Are they all hearing impaired?

[@waynebarton2760]

All the law and the government needs to change

[@pauldickson7217]

In the polls did you ask the people what they knew about the constitution? It’s like asking people if they want to be part of the EU when they know little or anything about it. Who would do that?

[@ProgressiveHivemind]

The UK isn't trying to untangle it's laws from the EU. The UK can have the exact same laws. That's the point, the UK can decide. But under Boris's deal Im not even sure the UK has control of its own laws, sounds like still tied to the EU.

[@TorianTammas]

A Kelly it is the withdrawal agreement that has been always on the table but with a border in the Irish Sea instead of none as it was before.

[@willjames1712]

Imagine trying to agree on a written constitution today. Stupid idea.

[@willjames1712]

@SomeoneOnlyWeKnow Well perhaps there is an element of that, but I was referring more to the division that exists within democratic society.

[@rbettsx]

I don't think common and statute law should have been described as part of our constitution. A constitution is that body of law which governs the governors. It can do so only by being more deeply entrenched than ordinary law. (If it wasn't, governments could overturn it in their own interests at any time.) If the measures which put the UK under the sway of EU law , and those that would take us out of it, had been recognised to be constitutional amendments in a written constitution, they would all have required super-majorities to pass, and we would not be in this mess. This is what happens when you try to pass constitutional amendments on simple majorities. Either in the legislature, or by plebiscite.

[@robinoneill7515]

I want to thank your constitution for delivering Arlene foster and the DUP, ultimately creating a united Ireland.

[@peterdixon7734]

All Cameron had to do was make the Referendum binding, but, no: he couldn't be bothered.

[@argleplonidge5838]

That is not possible . If a bill gets a majority in Parliament it then goes to the Queen for Royal Assent. Then it becomes the law of the land. Only the bill allowing a referendum can get Royal Assent, the result of a referendum cannot get Royal Assent. Therefore it can never be 'binding'. Cameron never had a workable plan if the referendum went marginally to 'leave'. That is why we are in this mess. He f**cked up and ran away.

[@ugugmug]

for it to be binding there would have to be one type of brexit to vote on - ie FTA or Norway. Otherwise, it's too vague, you need a law to vote on for a binding referendum.

[@richard-gn3es]

@@argleplonidge5838 the withdrawal act gained assent.. it was law yet has been subverted several times?

[@johnarryn1777]

If it was legally binding then it would have been required by law to be redone afterwards.

[@elwynjones763]

The referendum question needs pinning down in a written code which would require 60% of MPs to recommend and a 60% majority vote of the entire electorate in any resulting referendum.. If a written constitution should be recommended it would therefore need 60% vote of the entire electorate in favour in a referendum. (this would mean compulsory voting and registration, and maybe votes at 16). In any case, the Royal Prerogative should be abolished, as should an unelected House of Lords. Otherwise the unwritten flexible nature of the constitution should remain.

[@shahekdeedag5165]

UK needed a written constitution the moment #BorisTheLiar became the Prime Minister!

[@mamaleenabean8571]

Just curious from the outside looking in, what did he lie about?

[@shahekdeedag5165]

MamaLeena Bean you want a short answer or a PBS special?

[@WaterisbetterH20]

@@shahekdeedag5165 thats not an answer, that is a question.

[@rjkmusicmedia]

-Proportional Representation in parliament instead of First Past the Post -Abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act -Abolish Supreme Court and return Law Lords to Parliament -Referenda should be legally binding (50%+1 majority)

[@guleiro]

Let me guess : you are a Brexit supporter...

[@rjkmusicmedia]

@@guleiro The only Remainer policy change I've heard is having super-majority voting, which is woeful... Nothing would get done. Brexit aside, not only am I resetting things to how they were before, which worked, but updating our representation by magpie-ing the EUs way of voting in people/parties. The irony that they got one thing right...

[@LJK77777]

Am American with written constitution and we have constitutional crises all tge time. There is no written document free of interpretation and in America our Supreme Court slips and slids as its wants arguing "original intent." All things considered your patchwork works better (in relative terms). Be careful what you wish for!!!

[@Leberteich]

If we ever want to rejoin the EU, EU will ask for a written UK constitution.

[@PanosK777]

Don't mean to be a stickler, but my teacher training makes it hard to resist: the plural of the word 'referendum' is 'referenda', in the same way that the plurar of 'stadium' is 'stadia' and so on. This is a latin neuter word, the plural of which is formed by applying the suffix -a, whereas masculine words like 'octopus' form theirs with the suffix -i (octopi ). ;-)

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

Thanks for Information. Never too proud to learn something new.

[@PanosK777]

@@thecriticalthinkingchannel462 +1

[@edakalfa336]

Thanks for this informative video! I decided to add the graph of Hansard Society Poll "change the system of government" 09:26 vote results in my dissertation BUT even if I searched its website I could not find this original graph. Could you help me to find it and maybe share the link? I need this help very much. I hope you see the message!

[@danielkleingo]

MISTAKE TO HAVE *CODIFIED* CONSTITUTION. Video is lacking, no cover of subject. Just soundbites without arguments and examples. Parliament Acts are in fact the CONSTITUTION: Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, etc. Codified constitutions tend to jam vague concepts open to interpretations (see US Supreme Court). Parliament Acts are rather detailed, scrutinized, practical, functional (even if you don't like those). Acts are well-respected and allowed to be tested over time and circumstances - on the other hand open to be amended, after years, thoughtfully. This usually does not happen with reforms for a codified "hard coded" constitution (Ireland a good counter example where things actually work mostly). This create a hash of half-baked compromises, pressed by time and political gains, for a give-and-take negotiation (rather than thoughtful consensus). It invites lengthy legal battles, annoying process, dirty campaigns, partisan interests, etc. Just think of this: 1) How many Acts of Parliament deemed "unconstitutional" & void in the UK? Few if none... 2) How many acts of parliaments elsewhere are "cancelled" because it's unconstitutional? * If you think referenda work elsewhere - you are wrong :) Check California or Switzerland ("good occasionally poor" would best describe it). I respect direct democracy but it does not yield smooth results as many think. Not just a UK issue.

[@Beliefish]

If UK had a constitution brexit (at this point in time) would not be possible. Brexit is a constitutional change. In normal democracies (I am from Slovenia), you need 2/3 of the wote to change constitution. UK not only does not have 2/3 majority, you will probably not even have an absolute majority of the vote. You will vote for a deal with majority of currently present MP. Ergo, you are not a democratic nation.

[@Beliefish]

​@Albert Pike We left Jugoslavija in orderly manner. You should look up to us. The whole world was not laughing at us during that process.

[@emm_arr]

​@@Beliefish Al would love to be in your position. Slovenia sounds really nice. As it is, she's a Russian single mum doing this for very bad pay.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al. Surely you should be doing some Pan- Slavism now?

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

0:13 Honestly do we truly have a Consensus in England or United Kingdom that care enough?? There is no Constitutional Crisis depending on the context of seeking to have a written one. In the first instance I would say let us implement the already Constitutional et al existing in the most powerful Charters of Common Law. Yes I say Common Law. The problem we face ironically resides in same mindset that go about failing to implement and adhere to the referendum of 2016. (for obvious self serving and jurisdictional bias) They have also failed (perhaps deliberately disregarding the previous necessity of respecting and adhering to Common Law when STATUTE LAW goes rogue ) to implement and adhere to the Nuance and Protocols of the strengthening Chartered Documents unique to England's historical Moral, Righteous, Principle, Ethical, and Jurisdictional evolution -for the most part adversarial to Europe Jurisdictional evolution. You could say with learned understanding -for the last 50 - 100 years gone by, as first England then United Kingdom, it has regressed. So you see it is not a necessity to have a written Constitution (which in of itself is misleading because documents are already written and inherently adopted as and with Constitutional influence -just need implementing consistently) it is a necessity to implement (through correct teaching in classroom, public, political and judiciary corridors) the collective importance, existence and significance of the ALREADY WRITTEN documents we value as our principled constitutional governance. Now in the context of BREXIT and CONSTITUTION I would say the Constitution I speak of above resides outside the Jurisdictional influence of Parliament directly. to the point it was Boris Johnson that risked being sent to jail not the GOVERNMENT. But by summoning Boris Johnson to Common Law Court it GOVERNMENT was also indirectly influence -as was observed. However, further in this video there is a presented document to encourage politicians to allude them of their parameters of their duties etc. I would go further (notwithstanding by no mean have I read or would even given privy to read such document) to create and implement a contractual PEOPLES CHARTER that would position between Common Law, STATUTE LAW and POLITICAL PARTIES; filling in all the loop holes and shenanigans that BREXIT has exposed. What we certainly have is a DEMOCRACY crisis. For Example such a PEOPLES CHARTER would have some as follows: 1. No POLITICIAN to be allow to campaign in one PARTY get democratically elected then subsequently jump to another PARTY or as an INDEPENDENT. The PEOPLES CHARTER would dictate that such MP would instantly have to seek reelection at a bye election or leave politics. 2. That in the first instance any advisory referendum should be mandatory once it is followed by a PARTY MANIFESTO PLEDGE to implement. Failure to do so would activate a default GENERAL ELECTION and the PARTY Removed. 3. That no PARTY or MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT can go against the CONSENSUS (the voting majority of one) of the COUNTRY. To do so will be a default instant dismissal from office. 4 That any STATUTE ARRANGEMENT/DEAL and TREATIES carries a default not exceeding an elected cycle of five years subject renewal. Also nothing is entered into without an exit clause. Therefore no live of a bad decision will exceed the life existence of a removed government.. So if it serves the peoples interest then it is renewed if not it is rejected for failure. It is that simple -why not? after all this supposed to be the century of intelligence thinking. Like I have said these are gaps that has failed us consistently -let us fix them. Feel free to add another four.

[@Prometheus4096]

The UK needs to become a republic with a constitution! It is does not, it is fucked.

[@drewguardo]

Dont use referendums in the future, canada learned that one the hard way.

[@gerardking4333]

If it's not a written legal document it does not exist.

[@gerardking4333]

@Albert Pike according to the American Bar Association the American Constitution is, I quote, "The U. S. Constitution was arguably the first truly modern nation-state constitution as political-legal document".

[@johnsmith9903]

"NOT LEGALLY BINDING" DROPXIT. No law changes needed.Just the law applied instead of "the will of the people"repeated.

[@jenniferbloomfield3656]

I think there should be more knowledge and understanding about who has the power, what the rules are, and what they mean, but I think there should be more clarity. So for example if there was a referendum they could say there has to be at least 10% majority to make it official. If not it should come down to the people in charge, to come up with what they think is the best thing to do. I also think that looking at some of the documents for laws, they can be at times quite complicated to read and understand. So I think there should be a sort of translation document that explains what it all means. So I think yes there may have to have some change but I think it mostly comes down to clarity. I think there should be more essence of togetherness. It doesnt matter what background a person comes from, we should be trying to help each other and come together to sort the problems out. Instead of having a go at each other we should be saying well what next. How do we move on from this. Yes we might have a say but unless parliament knows what exactly we want how can they do their job properly. If all parliament is remain and yet they are still going on with leave, how could they know what to do next. They put it to the people, they made a choice that goes against what they belief, so instead of having a go, maybe they just need some guidance about what the people want. Why the leavers want to leave.

[@RockHoppingGranny]

If the general public had been given ALL the information they needed on which to base their decision to leave or stay, the voting may have been very different. Equally if we were like Australia and everyone had to vote by law, then all those who abstained from voting in the Referendum would have had to make a decision and vote. I believe the whole governing system needs as much of an overhaul now as it did when the Magna Carta was first written.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Stupid shitpost, Al!

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Stupid shitpost, Al! Obviously so too!

[@ndixon8241]

The education system should be teaching youngsters about the country they will soon contribute to, it's constitutional, legal and financial system and how it's government interacts with the world. It was stupidity to give the referendum to us without educating us on what we were voting for, advisory or not.

[@deedarwell3771]

Anything that takes away the will and rights of The People Should Not Have Overriding Authority!

[@emm_arr]

Any and all laws do that. Have a laugh at Al Puke then ponder the problem with your claim.

[@NilsGJBruijel]

Thanks for this item, both clarifies and raises interesting questions.

[@matthewwallis419]

no party should be aloud to put someone in place as pm. without a peoples vote not a select few

[@CryBaby482.02]

Referendums should always be used the people should always vote on new laws, As we are the majority of the Population

[@samrowbotham8914]

Britain is a landmass how can a landmass have a Constitution pray do tell? The United Kingdom is a Political Union of Nation States and a tenuous one at that I suggest we dissolve it. This leaves us with the Sovereign Nation-States that live and exist on this Island. England Wales and Scotland. England and Wales share the same Constitution whilst Scotland has its own Constitution and that explains why their legal system is different from ours. Our Constitution is uncodified it is written down not in one general document but in many documents and this is what gives it strength according to Juris those who teach Law. Our Constitution has been subverted of that there is no doubt as Orwell wrote if you want to destroy a Sovereign people you subvert the Constitution. We have people holding public office who are committing High Treason why are they not being arrested for the crime. We have the likes of Gina Miller claiming spuriously that Parliament is Sovereign when the fact is Parliament voted of the question of Sovereignty on the 8th March 1784 and decided in its then wisdom that Sovereignty rests with the Monarch who is the guardian of it. The Monarch cannot give Sovereignty away and our whole oath system is based on Sovereignty not forgetting that we are a Constitutional Monarchy and the provenance of Parliament is that it started life as the Monarch's Court. Parliament is not Supreme either you should remember one thing; England is ruled, not by the Queen or Parliament and not by the Queen in Parliament, England is ruled by the Law of the very good Constitution left to us by our forefathers

[@eeetee792]

Try consitutional monarchy .... thats our system. And the queen has a lot more power than the public know

[@emm_arr]

"I suggest we dissolve it [the UK]" Subgenius. Home improvements via demolition.

[@samrowbotham8914]

@@eeetee792 I said above we are a Constitutional Monarchy and the Monarch's word is supposed to be the last word using the Royal Prerogative with the proviso it must be in alignment with Constitutional Law.

[@samrowbotham8914]

@Joe Box I will take that as a You do not know. LOL

[@hansiesma16]

Sam Rowbotham Nice - a nutjob flat earther Yank masquerading as a Brit. Share your views on dinosaurs, I feel it would be much more entertaining.

[@nicholaswoolfenden5254]

More importantly it is the Westminster System that needs changing or scrapping entirely. We have it in Australia and it has failed many times. Archaic, inflexible and stodgy, it also encourages the 2 party tyranny that we all have in UK, Commonwealth and USA to name a few.

[@emm_arr]

@Albert Pike Rubbish shitpost, Al!

[@toyotaprius79]

_"What do you think?"_ *read; we're lazy, don't torch the comments section.*

[@mjag2834]

Why are you bumfucked?

[@kuribojim3916]

So you’re expecting them to tell you what you think? Novel idea. 🤔

[@jibjub2121]

A funny way to announce to everyone that you can't think for yourself

[@jeanpelletier206]

What constitution? No written one means anything goes!

[@davidmchugh2512]

Britain's constitution should remain uncodified, the House of Lords needs to be changed to about a quarter of its current size and be made up of experts in various fields, there should be a set of rules or conditions on referendum's. The house of commons is also to big we should have less constituencies, so yes we do need some reforms but a written constitution is NOT a good idea it needs to be able to evolve.

[@johndewit6877]

he didnt say anything about van Gend en Loos im disappointed

[@ronaldderooij1774]

That was in 1963, I believe. Far before the UK entered the EC (later EU).

[@pasqualeminicucci1643]

Well done and very helpful in understanding the complexities.

[@thecriticalthinkingchannel462]

No he is no! He is quite misleading.! There is already a Written Constitution; Magna Carta Liberatum 1225; The Great Charter of Liberties, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights etc. It is a disservice for anybody to pretend or mislead of there not being a Written Constitution. However in the Context of PARLIAMENT it only applies to the Men and Women in PARLIAMENT But NOT PARLIAMENT itself because the Constitution resides outside its JURISDICTION OF STATUTE & ACTS. That Jurisdiction in question is Common Law. That is to say that PARLIAMENT resides outside Common Law. Firstly, you notice I use Caps in some cases? Well this is the correct appellation of Jurisdiction/JURISDICTION identity. Also I used the word reside. This is because we have unwittingly stepped out of Common Law when we invented PARLIAMENT. So why is this not thought in school? Well when you put the Fox to teach the Hen what do you think will happen. Well one likely possibility is that the Hen thought to be a Fox when it is indeed a Hen. Or when the Servant educates the master, the servant is definitely not going to teach the Master anything which threatens the Servant's stronghold. Hence the BREXIT saga we are facing in our Country today.

[@jetpetty1613]

There was a project to write UK constitution down back in 2000 to protect British rights within EU

[@jetpetty1613]

I wonder what became of that project...

[@jetpetty1613]

What information led you to believe that it was a scam?

[@jetpetty1613]

That was the reason why the UK was codifying it's constitution at the time - to protect British citizen's rights. So again, what information led you to believe that the original attempt to write down the British constitution was a scam?

[@ballsoffury6969]

A flexible Constitution is not the problem. The problem was with the referendum. A referendum should only be viable if a) it is based on tangible facts and b) can only be implemented if there is a super majority (70%) approve. *Just my two cents of sense.

[@yinka661]

Magna Carta ... ‘no free man....’ so what happen when the British descended on Africa?

[@nasreenakhtar8521]

Interesting. Thank you

[@akumar7366]

No.

[@crazyrichwumao]

what sup with the staple, pens and scissor on her desk. is this night court? @3:53