About That Constitution Thing

Nosemonkey reminds me of something from a few years ago.

Sir – Can I suggest that, if Jack Straw desires a written constitution for the EU (report, Aug 27), he contact our American cousins?

They have a simple, logical document that has worked well for the past 214 years or so. They also have that period of case law from the Supreme Court that sorts out the various details and conflicts. And their method of governing much of a continent does seem to provide a vibrant, wealthy society. Such issues as subsidiarity are already dealt with.

Why not simply adopt the thing wholesale? After all, if Britain is to have political union with Sweden, why should it not also have it with Minnesota?

12 thoughts on “About That Constitution Thing”

  1. But Tim, the United Kingdom has worked so very well, in such peace and harmony for hundreds of years.

    There’s no way we need a written document when we can always have the State tell us what our rights are at any given moment. After all, we wouldn’t want to inflexibly have the same rights all of the time.

    This blog is creeping towards republicanism. Next thing you know, you’ll be advocating for civil rights, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances against Parliament etc and who knows what chaos that would lead to?

  2. “But Tim, the United Kingdom has worked so very well, in such peace and harmony for hundreds of years.”

    No more than 300 years. The unrest after war finished in 1815 wasn’t harmonious to anyone who was at St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester.

    “There’s no way we need a written document when we can always have the State tell us what our rights are at any given moment.”

    Err. The State doesn’t “tell us” our rights. We have the rights. That’s why they’re called “fundamental”. A written document tells the State what it can’t do, not what we can.

    “After all, we wouldn’t want to inflexibly have the same rights all of the time.”

    Oh yes we would. That’s the whole point!

  3. “Kay – I think John was attempting irony.”

    Too subtle for me. I’ve been reading too many blogs recently with people seriously advocating dismantling all kinds of freedoms and protections.

    One day we’re going to have to fight again, in a way not seen since the days of Charles I.

  4. “since the days of Charles I”

    Funny Heffer is comparing David Davis to Oliver Cromwell (I don’t see the similarity myself though).

    While surfing the blogs I was struck by the fact very few understand the principle of liberty and rights at all. The Liberal Conspiracy doesn’t consider DD a liberal because he is against the ban on fox hunting!

  5. The American Constitution is a very fine decorative object, but the actual constitution that they live by is rather different, involving a large role for the whims of Supreme Court judges, power-grabs by Presidents, and unConstitutional acts by Congress. I’d like to see us try to write a Constitution that suits us while being reasonably impervious to such ills.

  6. Pingback: After Ireland : Jay Currie

  7. Yes I was being ironic. But Tim is a member of the UKIP – and as far as I can gather is not a party which promotes republicanism.

    I’d like to see us try to write a Constitution that suits us while being reasonably impervious to such ills.

    You realise of course, that such actions are tantamount to treason in the UK?

  8. Kay Tie:

    No more than 300 years. The unrest after war finished in 1815 wasn’t harmonious to anyone who was at St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester.

    Your grip on history is tenuous.

    The State doesn’t “tell us” our rights. We have the rights. That’s why they’re called “fundamental”. A written document tells the State what it can’t do, not what we can.

    You clearly don’t know what State you’re in, do you?

  9. dearieme wishes that we could “write a Constitution that suits us while being reasonably impervious to such ills.”

    Simple.

    First, write the constitution.

    Then deport 100% of the people.

    It’s the people that always mess up even the ideal arrangement.

    Damn them anyway.

  10. dearieme continues to make the problem more difficult that it needs to be.

    ” drafting the clause on expelling people called “John” might be a bit tricky.

    Yeah, Well. My suggestion is to deport 100% of the people. Fell swoop.

    On the other hand, deporting those named “dearieme” would be simple and of clear value to the commonweal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *