The room split almost perfectly over a constitutional paradox: voters wanted firmer safeguards, but feared the hands that would forge them. No narrowly won, with 555 votes to Yes’s 539, while one Yes voter captured the mood of qualified conviction: “I agree with the principle however I fear the execution.”
The winning side’s strongest argument was not that the existing constitution is flawless, but that it is safer than an improvised replacement. The floor’s most-respected No case warned that “politicians getting involved to write a constitution will only allow them to mess something else up”, with other No voices returning to parliamentary sovereignty, institutional resilience and the repeated demand to undo what they called the constitutional damage of the Blair years.
Yes voters argued that flexibility had become exposure. Their most-respected case called for “Entrenching a Bill of Rights and the separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary”, while another warned that a temporary majority could “gut human rights, or roll back devolution on a simple whim”; the counter-case was that the same politicians could be trusted to entrench the wrong things.
That is where the debate sat inside the live argument over rights, devolution and executive power. The Yes side asked for clarity and protection from government, saying “We need safeguards built in to protect our rights from being removed”; No voters answered that the present political class could not be trusted with the cure, even as several conceded that a stronger Bill of Rights might be worthwhile.
The result leaves neither side with a clean victory. The UK-on-the-platform did not settle whether a codified constitution is desirable in principle; it settled, narrowly, that this is not the moment to let current politicians write one.
51 Opinions
No. See: arguments about the right to bear arms circa USA2026. 🫣 Language might change in 100 years, don't need our children's children's children arguing over semantics when they could be living their best lives. 😊
We have a very flexible Constitution which relies on good faith & Institutional resilience free of corruption. Blair’s ‘reforms’ took a wrecking ball to our Constitution & continue to create havoc in UK. Parliament has allowed Executive to claim powers it was not granted & 3 Labour supporting Speakers have corruptly traduced Parliamentary procedures traditions & fairness. The Supreme Court also a bed of progressives. We need locally selected honest MPs with real life zeal.
A solid British bill of rights is where I want that energy focussed. The American constitution is what that is but with guns.
This should not even be a debate in 2026
Britain's laws grew up with experience over the centuries and does not need codifying. What we do need to do is to abolish every piece of the constitutional vandalism from the Blair years
Constitution under a confederlism view point. That would give each country of the uk a say in their own countries and an over sight Committee to keep all in order. The set up we have now is a joke. Swinney trying to force another referendum after the snp signed up to a once in a generation referendum is a joke too.
Just as a piece of writing, I can't think of anyone who could write language to be proud of now, and in 500 years. We just can't do it any more. (Maybe AI could?)
The constitution as it stands must stay as it is.
All we need is the parliamentary act the act of settlement and loyalty to the crown whilst they are good Protestants
Firstly it's the people that are sovereign not Parliament, Parliament serves the people so does the King that's the way it's supposed to work. We have a constitution already & that should be adhered to. Everything since Blair should be repealed.. There are many experts & historians that can explain & advise the people & Parliament on this issue.