Britain needs a written constitution - what are the implications for women's rights?

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

One to watch out for. Women's rights campaigners are going to have to monitor this closely, because we certainly don't want anything written in stone that is detrimental to women's and children's rights, which cannot be challenged later.

It would be interesting to hear how you think something like this could affect women's rights. I'm afraid I don't know enough about constitutional law in Britain, especially as to how this will impact on devolution rights in Scotland, Wales, and NI.

Burnham: Britain needs written constitution as country is run differently

The new prime minister has said that a written constitution could be needed for Britain as a "different approach" is taken to running the country.

Speaking this week as he revealed plans for increased devolution, Andy Burnham said the proposals increased the case for a formal constitution because they would change Britain.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-andy-burnham-keir-starmer-labour-12593360

Legally speaking i fail to see how one could be embedded in law. This is because the “constitution” would have to take the form of legislation.

And the very specific rule is that any legislation cannot bind a future government. So a future majority party could simply get rid of said legislated constitution.

Britain? Not the UK? almost a textbook case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

I'd like a codified constitution, but getting there would involve a serious sort-out of a very capacious Pandora's box. I'd put big money on Burnham going nowhere near. No Labour leader has shown much appetite for significant constitutional reform before taking office and they only get more timid once in power.

Burnham seems fairly committed to using his political capital to 'sort out social care' - that's not going to leave him with enough even to try to tackle the constitution. Pull at one thread of the current settlement and you soon realise that it's more or less impossible to take a piecemeal approach.

He's announcing so many grandiose plans but hasn't even spoken to parliament yet. He's starting to sound more like a dictator every day.
I think he's going to get a nasty shock when he actually faces reality.

Yes, I thought about that because the statement is directly linked to devolution plans, so either he or Sky News were using "shorthand " I think. Doesn't make much sense if it's only going to be about GB, but, as others have said, it's not likely to gain any ground?

Thanks for this, explains a lot. I wonder if this idea is coming from Compass and Neal Lawson? Or has Burnham been thinking about this for a while?

Anyway, as others have pointed out, he's going to have his hands full, so I'll just keep it on the back burner for now.

Odd to bring it up now. He's an odd one.

I think you're right about the shock!

Yes, he's announcing so many new plans and strategies, and yet, at the same time, promising to stick to Labour's manifesto. I don't think it's possible to do it all.

Sadly he has a huge majority there.

In terms of a written constitution - stating you wish to write one is reason enough for me not to trust you.

This is something I’ve been thinking about recently. We used to be told that we needed a written constitution so that we could have our rights and freedoms preserved as they are in the US. It doesn’t seem as though it’s been of much use to them there, recently.

The famous separation of powers has been circumvented. The constitution was intended to be secular, but added “under God” to the oath of allegiance in 1954 and is increasingly verging on a theocracy.

Canada does alright though, with its constitution

Have there been any successful constitutions which serve people across the whole political spectrum written and passed through the legislature by a single party with a huge majority?

We have a written Constitution in Ireland and it has been useful in some cases in limiting politicians' ability to make major changes to rights and freedoms without the consent of the electorate. But things not covered by the constitution, big example gender, are still there for the screwing up.

Be wary.

Anyway, I suspect that your unwritten constitution means that the only person who could write one for the UK would be the King (with input from politicians).

It is tempting, in a way, to have everything written in stone, especially knowing how captured the judiciary seems to be at the moment. But, of course, you'd never get everything covered, and what you do have would be so endlessly debated that nothing else would get done!

I've done a lot of reading about the development of the US Constitution, and it had plenty of detractors. No one was happy about everything, but it had to be done because they were setting up a new country and government. But look at all the amendments that have had to be drawn up!

It's always been mildly unsettling to me, living in the UK, not having a written constitution to fall back on, but I'm used to it now. On the whole, it works. And the UK is such an old country, even if you only date that from the Act of Union, it would be difficult in the extreme to tie hundreds of years of precedent to a single document.

Besides, I find the British (and the Irish!) so much more sensible than Americans, right down to a basic level!

I wonder what's drawn Burnham to this now?

Don't know, but I would think that something this important would have to have cross-party support from at least the three main parties (well, four if you now count Reform!) and then, Wales, NI, and Scotland would also have to agree.

I can't see this ever being something Labour could push through, even with a majority, no matter who is PM. I don't think it would be "constitutional" (sorry).

The Tory/Lib Dem Government brought in the fixed term parliament legislation only for it to be scrapped a few years later

He wants his name attached to everything from bus fares coming down to writing a constitution.

Britain has a written constitution. It is uncodified thus quite flexible (unlike the US constitution which needs constant amendment). It consists in acts including 4 extant clauses of Magna Carta (if you want to know they are that the church and the city of London are self-governing, that trial by one's peers is guaranteed and that no person shall have their property or reputation removed without just cause and trial by his/her peers and found guilty - this clause also includes that justice shall not be sold). All the franchise acts, the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights (one each for Scotland and England and Wales) etc. Erskine May sets out Parliamentary procedure, which is part of the constitution. There is also the doctrine of the Crown in Parliament and that no parliament can bind its successors (the problem membership of the increasingly intrusive EU fell foul of). The sovereign has the constitutional duty to advise and to warn her/his ministers but is constitutionally neutral. The state consists of the Executive which runs the country through a Cabinet (which has communal responsibility) and a bi-cameral parliament/legislature, the Judiciary(which administers statute and Common Law - that the UK is a Common Law country was another problem with being in the EU where most countries use a Civil Code and EU law is based on that assumption) and the Church. The armed forces, police etc and civil service are loyal to the sovereign, not to the government. The armed forces and the police make their oath to the sovereign.
That's all a bit general but we don't need to re-write what we already have. My DD would do it better, she studied constitutional history and law.

Top post @Grammarnut

that is the only reason i voted for out of the EU.

@Grammarnut thanks for that, quite comprehensive. I knew some of that, but never understood the EU conflicts (TBF I also wasn't that interested enough to find out, and then we left the EU anyway).

So, now I'm even more confused than ever why Burnham "wants to have a written constitution."

ed sp

@BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp politicians rarely understand the law, or pretend not to.