@AchatAVendre
AChataVendre, your first comment on the UK constitution was the following:
"Its not a fully written constitution and the written part is spread over a huge number of different pieces of legislation. But the UK has a part written, part unwritten constitution."
This can be shown to be an incorrect reading of the UK constitution whether you like it or not.
Lord Phillip Norton of Louth is regarded as a leading expert on the UK constitution and he stated:
"First, most of our constitution is written. It is embodied in a range of statutes, such as the Bill of Rights 1689, the Parliament Act 1911, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It is thus not unwritten."
And:
"Some people say of the constitution..."we don’t have a constitution", some would say "we’ve got a written and unwritten constitution". Both are incorrect.
A constitution essentially is the combination of laws, customs, practices that determine the organs of the state, the relationship between those organs, and between those organs and the citizen. And so defined, every nation has a constitution.
The United Kingdom constitution is, in many respects, written because a large part of it is embodied in statute law. So, it’s written, it’s authoritative, but what it is not is codified. So, the principal elements, the tenets of the constitution are not drawn together in a codified constitution. So, we can’t hold up a document and say this is “the constitution.”"
So, as we can see, your own assertion that the UK has a "part written, part unwritten" constitution is simply incorrect. You might claim be an "EU lawyer", but you're just a random person online merely claiming that. Norton, on the other hand, is a well established expert on the UK constitution and, according to Hull University, "has been described as the UK's greatest living expert on Parliament." He's also described as “a world authority on constitutional issues”.
I'm afraid YOU just don't cut it. At any rate, what Norton has stated about the UK constitution is what I was also taught during my politics course some years ago.
Your original assertion is incorrect and your subsequent comments don't actually support it.
AChataVendre said:
"See above. This provides the answer to your assertion. It is the answer in the rest of the world. The UK Constitution is holding the UK back and now needs to be modernised and collated. That means a single document modern written constitution."
Actually, constitutional experts such as Lord Norton very much caution AGAINST assertions like yours where its claimed that a written constitution is the "answer".
As Norton explains:
"Arguing the case for a ‘written’ constitution is very much in vogue at the moment. The danger is one of what amounts to a moral panic inducing us to move in that direction, though how one achieves a codified constitution given our extant constitution is another issue. The case for it is not so much made on its merits, but rather as a means to an end. A ‘written’ constitution is a modern-day form of constitutional snake oil. It is advanced as a cure for a range of constitutional ills. ‘Our rights are under threat, especially if we leave the EU, let us have a written constitution’. ‘The Union of the UK is under threat – let us have a written constitution’. ‘Politicians are charlatans, on the make, the Speaker is overstepping the mark – let us have a written constitution’. These are not made-up examples, but drawn from arguments made recently. None starts from first principles. These calls are made on the basis that the content will comply with what the particular advocate wants, but what is sought by some conflicts with what is demanded by others.....
The point here is not so much the merits, but the political reality. A codified constitution may not so much settle matters as invite conflict...
It is not that clear that the present conflicts besetting the UK, especially in respect of Brexit, would be that much different if we had a codified constitution. Political controversy over the use of the power to prorogue the legislature is not exclusive to the UK and the prerogative power of prorogation could have been left unaffected by a codified document, as it was by section 6(1) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act...
If it embodies the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act – and, if it does not, what would be the provisions governing general elections and the executive maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons? – we would be encountering the same problems we have at the moment. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act demonstrates some of the problems of translating constitutional conventions into hard legal form, in this case, statute, but it would be exactly the same with a codified constitution. Arguably, it would be worse in terms of effect, in that problems could not be so easily rectified if the document is entrenched...
Advocating a codified constitution appears in many respects displacement activity. It avoids addressing the actual messy and serious issues we face. Politicians who advocate it are basically denying responsibility for their actions in dealing with current issues. ‘Not my fault, we need a written constitution’. There is also an intrinsic conundrum. Pressure for a codified constitution derives in part from current conflicts. The very fact of the conflicts make it difficult to see how one will reach agreement on everything to be included....
Advancing the merits of a codified constitution against the demerits of an uncodified one is to skew the discussion. The merits of one have to be set alongside the merits of the other. Sir Sidney Low, in The British Constitution in 1928, wrote: ‘In England we often do a thing first and then discover that we have done it’. We are in danger of rushing in to craft a codified constitution without thinking through the consequences. If we then find we have done it and made a hash of it, there is little we can do to correct the situation.
I have argued the case before that we do not need a constitutional convention to tell us where we should be going. We need a constitutional convocation to make sense of where we are."
On balance, I agree with Norton's expert a analysis that what the UK needs is a constitutional convocation.
Not a codified constitution.
The UK constitution isn't holding the UK back any more than New Zealand and Canada are held back by their own uncodified constitutions.
AChataVendre, I'm afraid you have failed to provide any kind of answer here.
"Slovakia and Ireland, eh? Well, no other western European nations' constitutions can be changed by simple majority."
Given your wording there, I only need one further example: Denmark. A few European states have more than one route to constitutional amendment they can pursue - multiple choice and they can just choose one - and simple majority is one of them.
You can attempt to downplay and even deride the examples given with Slovakia and the Republic of Ireland all you like, but the fact remains they ARE valid and legitimate examples of European states which can change their constitutions through a simple majority vote in a referendum. Much like the British people themselves.
AChataVendre said:
"The reason being is that its not a very good idea because it leads to instability and lack of predictability."
No, this is not a given and nor is it a given that firmly entrenched written constitutions lead to stability and predictability.
"Erm, what is it you are trying to say here?"
I'm surprised an alleged "EU lawyer" such as yourself needs to ask that, but it means the courts will need to interpret more of those constitutions with low rates of interpretability.
AChataVendre said:
"But no other large successful country has the UK model."
The UK is NOT alone as already demonstrated.
AChataVendre said:
"And France managed to get rid of feudalism about 300 years earlier than the UK too. Really, none of this above means it isn't a good idea. I'm pretty sure that counties such as Switzerland and The Netherlands had neither wars or revolutions which led them to adopting modern single document constitutions and constitutional courts."
The UK certainly isn't feudal, but it is a constitutional Monarchy and not the only one either. Now, none of what you said means it's a good idea to go the route of creating a codified constitution. I refer you back to Norton's expertise once again.
Meg Russell, Professor of British and comparative politics and director of the Constitution as well as senior fellow with the UK in a changing Europe program and as leading the project Brexit Parliament and the Constitution unit at University College London, stated:
"The Constitutions in many other parts of the world result from revolution, defeat in war, that kind of thing. We have never gone through that, luckily. And, therefore, we have this very kind of organic development of our rules, which has never resulted in a single document."
Revolutions and violent conflict in Europe led the Netherlands to create a written constitution. States surrounding the Netherlands were in massive constitutional upheaval. Don't forget, Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in a violent manner.
AChataVendre said:
"Erm, well done. Devolution hasn't been done well from a constitutional perspective because it was done in a hurry with insufficient accountability for the large amount of legislation passed by the devolved governments, which are unicameral."
On the contrary, the point is that the UK constitution was flexible enough to meet the changing demands of the population. If need be, this can be done rapidly. Criticism of the process of devolution is itself valid as all systems of governance have downsides. But that doesn't mean devolution wasn't a good idea. The reality of the UK constitution is that we can improve devolution over time and are not stuck in a badly functioning system via a codified constitution.
As Norton argued, "We are in danger of rushing in to craft a codified constitution without thinking through the consequences. If we then find we have done it and made a hash of it, there is little we can do to correct the situation."
And Russell stated, "....we have this very kind of organic development of our rules."
This is not a bad thing and you can argue its actually good that the UK is not entrenched into the current style of devolution through a written constitution. Ergo, the UK has a lot of ability with which to improve devolution itself and even to further define it.
AChataVendre said:
"You just wrote yourself a few paragraphs above about the enormous amount of constitutional change that the UK has experienced so far..."
This is NOT the same thing as disruptive constitutional change which is the context of my post you quoted. The UK has experienced major constitutional change with devolution, for example, but it has not been disruptive. The UK is able to function without disruption to the lives of its citizens.
AChataVendre said:
"Why?"
I refer you once again to Norton. Especially this part:
"I have argued the case before that we do not need a constitutional convention to tell us where we should be going. We need a constitutional convocation to make sense of where we are."
That's a much better idea than yours and he's recognised as a leading expert on constitutional matters.
AChataVendre said:
"Thats because I'm an EU lawyer who writes on EU law and EU constitutions..."
Ooft! So what? That you cannot argue against the UN HDI suggests your motive has been to put the UK down in relation to European states.
The findings of the IN HDI simply showed you up here. A few pages back, you attempted to make a blanket statement asserting that European states run various public services much better than the UK does based on your own anecdotes. That's a Hasty Generalisation and Anecdotal Fallacy at once.
Hence, I undermined your assertion with the UN HDI. Only nine European states are ranked higher than the UK and I trust you know how many countries there are in Europe, aye?