“Someday we should be citizens not subjects” gave the winning side its cleanest line, and Yes carried the vote with 152 votes to No’s 107. Yet this was no blank-cheque endorsement: supporters repeatedly attached conditions about public consent, a bill of rights, regional equality and even the ability to amend the document by referendum.
The floor’s most-respected Yes arguments presented codification as a restraint on Westminster’s reach: “clearer rules, stronger rights, limits on government power and equal standards across the UK”. Others cast it in more historic terms, wanting citizens rather than subjects, or a modern rights settlement to stand where the ECHR might one day be removed. Even the winning side’s strongest voices conceded that involving the public would be difficult, and that a constitution written by the present political class could be worse than none.
No’s case was less a defence of every existing convention than a warning about the machinery of replacement. Its most-respected objections asked, “do we even know what we want in these turbulent and contentious times”, while another voter said they would not trust the government and civil service to write “a shopping list”. The two sides talked past each other: Yes saw flexibility as permission for Parliament to do what it likes; No saw fixed language as a factory for loopholes, judicial expansion and expensive consultation.
That shared distrust was the debate’s deeper finding. A Yes voter worried about “our current political class”, while a No voice said, “I don't trust anyone in this capital-captured system to enshrine rights into code”; both were arguing less about parchment than about power. The room also split over what protection should mean — a full bill of rights, possibly replacing the ECHR, for some; the Act of Settlement and a reformed old system for others — with concerns ranging from devolution and equal standards to judges reading beyond the text.
Yes won the mandate, but the chamber’s real demand was more exacting: write the rules, perhaps, but first prove who gets to write them and how they can be trusted.
21 Opinions
Absolutely; our values and ideals need to be enshrined and made immutable. There are certain aspects of culture that should not be up for spurious debate, but rather changed only through massive, unanimous consent.
We should have a proper constitution, including a full bill of rights to replace the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR, as some are keen to do, would be madness without putting something in place that gives similar protections to British citizens, while allowing us to tear down some of the barriers the ECHR currently puts up. Without adequate protections, our Government (any of them) would ride roughshod over the electorate. The people must have a say in any constitution.
The government frequently gets stuff wrong and MOs don’t appear to vote along lines of their constituents. So making a constitution that the public find palatable will be fraught with difficulties. But without a constitution, parliament can do what it likes based on tradition which isn’t always in toe with today’s society. The people must be involved in any constitution not just those with loudest voices and deepest pockets.
this is essential for the AI future. It prevents AI making its own judgmeny
It’s a flexible Constitution, which can be improved. Abolish the Supreme Court, reinstate Law Lords, reform the HofL - old system worked well - Blair intentionally broke it & KS appointed a permanent Labour majority of placemen. No skills no knowledge just loyalty. Was always against an elected upper chamber now I think it might work. We no longer have many honourable or able people in Parliament & given the Brexit treason etc MPs lie & cheat. Select better MPs with duty
Totally. And someday we should be citizens not subjects.
I don't trust anyone in this capital-captured system to enshrine rights into code.
I understand the idealistic concept. But I wouldn’t trust the current Gov / Civil Service to write a shopping list. I can imagine all the outside consultants being hired in at great expense. Public consultations. Years of argument.Easter if time and money whilst feathering the nest of lobbyists / consultants (future employers of their tame MP’s ??)
First it would be hugely expensive to work out & create. Secondly writing stuff down would create debate about what was really meant, endless loopholes & obviously there would be errors. Thirdly, do we even know what we want in these turbulent and contentious times- when national agreement is at an all time low? Look at our tax law- a huge complex series of documents that have enabled massive tax avoidance. We have enough documentation. Stick with ECHR
A written set of rules removes arguements around the spirit of them, and brings forth loopholes like those constantly exploited by trump and his goons.