Should We Codify the British Constitution? | Full Head To Head | Oxford Union

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
As the dust settles on Boris Johnson’s premiership, the unwritten British constitution
has been pushed to its limits. From the unlawful prorogation of parliament, to Jonhson’s threats to break domestic and international law over the Northern Ireland protocol, the extent to which the constitution relies on convention and governmental integrity has been revealed. In turn, some politicians, scholars, and commentators have argued that a written
constitution is a better guardian of fundamental rights and the separation of powers. On the other hand, critics of a written constitution point to the United States, which arguably faces rights retrenchment and an activist judiciary. Would a written British constitution be a stronger shield against tyranny, or would it merely empower unaccountable judges and stymie positive societal change?
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@Jimmy-ew2xe]

Our Constitution cannot be changed by anyone but the people of the country. No one is above the law or below. The people must inner stand their Constitution before this could be considered.

[@benz.]

A fantastic head-to-head with two learned speakers, thank you!

[@lodgin]

Have to agree that a written constitution is the way to go, though I'd only go so far as to establish a set of rules for entrenchment and ratification via referendum rather than attempting to write a big fancy document. That way we can rely on a slightly modified political process to get stuff entrenched. I think where Sir Robert's argument goes most awry is his assertions that Parliament has the right to modify the constitution by virtue of being an elected body. I contest that. While I accept that Parliament is, _lawfully speaking_ an elected body, but there's no escaping the fact that we almost never have governments elected with majority support of the electorate. Likewise with most MPs for that matter. For example, in 2015, the MP for Belfast South was elected on a mere 24.5% of the vote; and the government that was produced didn't do much better, being elected on a mere 36.8% of the vote. How anyone can suggest that this counts as a democratic mandate is beyond me, particularly when asserting that these governments then have a mandate to alter our constitution. This is made even more blatant since the current "duly elected" party lost the London Mayor elections, and so changed how London Mayors are elected to First Past The Post, a voting system known for favouring two-party systems. _I wonder why they did that._ This wouldn't have been possible if the right to free, fair, and representative elections were enshrined and entrenched. We must have rules to govern those who govern us, or they'll run amok, we we continue to bear witness to.

[@robofclanlennox]

Letter of the law v spirit of the law. It boils down to that. We all see how lawyers and political activists can reinterpret definitions and play mischief with language. I'll stick with the spirit of the law.

[@josejose1988]

I am afraid the orator for the UK is not addressing the issues directly for reasons known to him.

[@mousquetaire86]

Read the standing orders of parliament. Read them and understand them.

[@Frohicky1]

This is the kind of single upvote fusion than I can get behind.

[@tomlarpins7889]

what i would have brought in is the fact that the American constitution is the number one reason why the extreme right and left have fanatics and that a written constitution is a religious figure in a codified law system. While the unwritten constitution of the UK creates less fanatical parties and members of society. We do not have people dying just so people can protect an amendment.

[@sovereignjoe5730]

The United Kingdoms Common Law Constitution is so simple and must be kept so simple, that it never ever needs to be written & codified. This is because our Constitution is made of natural sovereign unalienable Common Law Constitutional principles, such as to keep the peace & unity; cause or suffer no intentional harm, loss or injury; no one should be above the law & all should be treated fairly & equally under the law; we the people are sovereign wo/men under God-the-Creators Sovereignty & should elect & loan our ConstitutionalMonarch-Head of State-Commander-in-Chief & Defender-of-the-Faith our sovereignty, to be our most senior Public Servant and if our Public Servants go rogue, .. then the natural unalienable & Common Law Constitutional principles within Article 61 of MagnaCharta1215 should be lawfully invoked, .. as they were in 2001 & still are to this day, ..

[@123gillam]

3 months ago 1.73 million subscribers only 1.9k views - something is very wrong here.

[@MCAincludeTC]

1 year later not much has changed

[@LindaAndrews-ly1qf]

28:36

[@jeanporter5092]

Would rather hear from William kyte

[@Metis1337]

A constitution should only come after political reform. Two elected chambers in a proportional manner, in a modern centralized building with the houses of parliament becoming an open free museum.

[@tadgray9114]

In theory, a written constitution should absolutely be foundational for any modern nation. However, the concern with this is the UK is that it would effectively give additional protections to the monarch and in turn, it's representatives within Parliament. Until such a point where the people quite rightly dispose of the monarchy and all its wrongs, we cannot have a constitutional convention that is empowered by the people.

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

They all answer to the people's law WHAT PARLIAMENT MAKES ISN'T LAW

[@arandmorgan]

You are altering constitutional law?

[@catmonarchist8920]

Written constitution is not the same thing as an unentrenched constitution. Look at Israel which has a written but unentrenched one

[@ohmy4275]

A codified constitution will not protect as much as many think either in regards to civil liberties or from authoritarianism. We have examples of this. And that's not counting any problematic constitutional provisions. I live in a country with a codified constitution. You don't understand how stupendously insufficient not to say annoying it is to end a dispute with a "well, it's/it's not in the constitution." In a country with an uncodified constitution every constitutional issue is re-negotiated and in a way re-established through judicial reasoning such as in Miller. Civil liberties are established through judicial reasoning, such as in Entick v Carrington. I have a small issue though with calling the supreme Court justices in the US activists. Every single justice everywhere is an activist to a degree. You know this. It's just we agree with some and disagree with others.

[@PCDelorian]

Whilst this is true, some protections are sorely needed, for example if Parliament decides not have an election one year and instead have power in perpetuity it would. Some procedural codification if not a Bill of Rights would be greatly received.

[@myNameIsNot-]

@@PCDelorianTraditions can either be followed or not. A text can be reinterpreted. This ruins the point of having a code book

[@PCDelorian]

@@myNameIsNot- The point is not is stop abuses of power and the removal of traditions, the aim is merely to make such difficult

[@myNameIsNot-]

@@PCDelorian this doesn’t answer to the problem of reinterpretations and enforcing backward standards of morality. If the US wants to change the drinking age to 18 it can’t because supermajority votes are hard to achieve

[@PCDelorian]

@@myNameIsNot- So the US can, its barred by Statute not Constitution it needs an Act of Congress to remove the Federal Highways Restriction to Federal funding which currently refuses money to any State without a lower drinking age, doesn't need an amendment, guns would have been a better argument, but you could have a notwithstanding clause that means the government have to come our and say its unconstitutional and renew the Act every 2 years like in Canada. Allow amendments only by popular referendum like in Ireland. Your points apply as cleanly to any law, but Parliament should not be the sole authority on law, they answer to nobody and there is no mechanism to stop plainly unfair laws contrary to hundreds of years of Common Law tradition because its somewhat popular for a brief time, or worse still and far more common hidden and under reported. You have no recourse and no rights to defend.

[@samrowbotham8914]

There is no British Constitution we have an English Constitution that goes back over a thousand years, and we share that with Wales. Scotland has its own constitution, hence, why its legal system is different to ours. The English and Scots Constitution has been suppressed, subverted and replaced by a monstrosity they call the United Kingdom Constitution which is why the system is now so venal and why they are allowing all the illegal immigrants in which is to our detriment and expense. I will let the House of Commons explain it to you in simple terms and remind you that Parliament is neither Sovereign nor is it Supreme: ". . . all Sovereign, Legislative, and Judicial Powers are the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated those their Original Powers to others, in Trust, for the Benefit of the Community, yet the Rights themselves are reserved by the People, and cannot be absolutely parted with by the People to those Persons who are employed to conduct the Business of the State.” It continues, “That the Constitution of England is held by the King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the People, in Trust, for the Benefit of the People; and though these Trustees may regulate and improve the Constitution, yet they cannot alter or subvert it without committing Treason against the Nation . . . That Magna Charta, or THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, . . . the Constitution of England, which are in and by them respectively declared . . ." Volume 49 of the Journals of the House of Commons (1783). Page 663

[@seanliburd57]

👼🏽💯

[@user-iq4kl8wi7p]

Weak argument against a codified set of minimum standards. Compliance as Code in the age of AI when the algorithm ls rule our lives is fundamental.

[@anthonygodfrey6131]

There is no such thing as the British Constitution. There is only The English Constitution.

[@timothymeyer3210]

That's....not how the Union works

[@MsMungus]

Yes it is. England and Wales share the English bill of rights and Scotland has the claim of right

[@The_New_IKB]

The higher law for governing those who govern is the Monarch!

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

Nope it's not they also agreed to the contract to respect our rights an laws And government doesn't make LAW'S

[@brostephenable]

There is no such thing as the british constitution. IT IS ENGLISH

[@hemperor7325]

1776 in the uk is needed