Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom

It is often said that the UK does not have a written constitution

The first paragraph currently has "It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution". I think it is much more frequently said that Britain does not have a written constitution. It looks as if the cited source agrees with me. The editor who wrote the following sentence, apparently also expected the preceding sentence to use the word unwritten and not uncodified or de facto. So I would suggest changing it (back) to "It is often said that it does not have a written constitution."--Boson (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the 'unwritten constitution' line is that although it is often said, it is not true (ie every bit of the consitution has been written down somewhere, even if only in the works of authority). It's probably not worth putting something in the introduction which is factually incorrect, even if it is often said - I think this would confuse the reader. Thom2002 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is explained in the following sentences. Now it reads

Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.

The second sentence is not supported by the cited sources (and is probably untrue) and the following sentence, beginning with 'however', seems to refer back to a statement that is no longer there. Since many people will have heard that the UK has no written constitution, it makes sense to state explicitly that that is not the case (with appropriate references). The wording "it is often said . . ." itself strongly implies that it is not true. --Boson (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is there a written Constitution of the UK? I mean is there

(1) A single (unique)

(2) written

document

(3) containing a set of the fundamental principles

That has supremacy over

(4) Ordinary Statutory law

(5) Any single person including the monarch

UK doesn't have a Constitution unless all these conditions are met. Currently UK is an Absolute monarchy. This doesn't sound modern enough, so they call it "a constitutional monarchy without constitution". By the way, "it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one" simply means "UK lives by the code of the underworld". They also have all these spoken and implied rules, that are not written anywhere.

That is nonsense. A constitution does not have to be written down all in place, nor all be written down at all (even written constitutions have unwritten rules of how they are interpreted), nor take precedence over other laws (this may be beginning to be true in the UK with the 1972 European Communities Act, but even then such a "constitutional law" is passed by the same process as any other act). The UK (England as she was at the time) monarchy has always been hedged about with laws (and agreed to govern according to them in 1215), parliament has been around since the late 1200s and the monarchy did not become absolute in the early modern period when other countries' mediaeval assemblies fell into abeyance. The powers of the monarch to pass on the throne to Roman Catholics, suspend laws, raise taxes or keep a standing army were explicitly removed by law in 1688-9. As discussed below, almost all the political power of the monarch has since atrophied to legal fiction, although she still retains emergency reserve powers similar to those a figurehead president would have.Paulturtle (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom article

Could editors please join in the discussion relating to the monarch's role, powers, etc, for the United Kingdom article.

Talk:United Kingdom#Politics

Thanks. David (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sovereign

Just showing my american ignorance, but this article starts talking about "the Sovereign" with defining who that is. I am pretty sure I have an idea as to who this is, but usually these things are very clearly laid out for us, either with a definition or a link to another article. Thanks very much....DannyJohansson (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Under the UK Constitution, "The Sovereign" is synonomous with "The Monarch". Two sources demonstrate this: the index of Leyland's "The Constitution of the UK" ("Sovereign: See Monarch") and Wikipedia (British Sovereign redirects to British Monarchy, not the other way round). The incumbent Monarch is HM Queen Elizabeth II. I think Monarch is the better term as it is more specific and accurate (I think otherwise it could get mixed up with Parliament as in "Parliament is Sovereign". Given that the two terms are synonomous, I'll change it to Monarch and wikilink. Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PS Danny, if you're using this article for anything important, I'd stick to the sourced facts as I think a few editors have got carried away with their own Royal enthusiasm! The powers of the Monarch are in practice more circumscribed than the unsourced statements in this article suggest. Thom2002 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more precise about which statements still need sourcing? --Boson (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of the statements under "Consitutional Monarchy" and "Prime Minister and Government" are unsourced. In particular, these sections both say that the Monarch has the power to dissolve Parliament, which does not agree with other parts of the article or with Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, therefore would need to have a pretty good source. In addition, the suggestion that the Monarch "personally exercises" her right to choose the Prime Minister is a bit of a stretch without a pretty good source. Thom2002 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is coming from two different meanings of the word "sovereign" - "the Crown in Parliament" is the sovereign - the lawmaker, recognising no higher power, without wishing to delve too deeply into the status of European Law. The Royal Veto has long since atrophied to legal fiction. One also needs to distinguish between "the Crown" (the State, although the term is gradually falling into disuse) and the monarchy - some Royal residences are the Queen's personal property whilst others belong more to the State. I agree with the bit about the Monarch "personally choosing" the Prime Minister - in practice she declines to get involved, although the emergency reserve power is still there.Paulturtle (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Republic

I think that this page would be vastly improved if the euphemistic language about "Monarchs" was cleared away by pointing out that terms like "on the advice of the Prime Minister" are fictions which obscure the removal of monarchical power from the "Monarch" and the vesting of them in the first/Prime Minister and that England became a republic de jure with the Coronation Oath Act 1688.Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree. The Queen reigns, she does not rule. I think 'Republic de Jure' is a bit strong, but at the moment the article gives massively undue weight to the formal authority of the monarchy, it would be better to cover this lightly before devoting the majority of the article to describing the day-to-day reality of where the power actually lies under the constitution. The serious books about the constitution are not tilted nearly so much towards formal royal authority Thom2002 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean "de facto" rather than "de jure" - the UK is still de jure a monarchy, although Bagehot remarked as long ago as the 1860s that it was a de facto republic. 1688 meant that the monarch held office (further codified by the 1701 Act of Settlement), raised taxes, kept a standing army and legislated by the agreement of Parliament, marking the end of Stuart claims of Divine Right (the legal theories on which Divine Right was based need not detain us here). The monarch was still Head of Government for quite a long time after 1688 - the atrophying of the monarch's hands-on role in government was a slow process over about 150 years, and the office of Prime Minister took a while to evolve (the First Lord of the Treasury was not necessarily the most powerful minister, nor did he have the right to sack his colleagues until the early twentieth century). Even after the 1830s monarchs had to be carefully handled by the government, sometimes by threatening resignation, into the reign of George V (the Abdication probably finally put an end to that).

My recollection from 20 years ago is that there were/are various Royal Prerogative powers which are exercised by the PM in the monarch's name, with little or no Parliamentary scrutiny - but you'd need to get that confirmed by a specialist. There is also a distinction between powers which are regarded as virtually dead, like the Royal Veto of legislation (the clerk just says "la Reine le veult" and that's that) and reserve powers which still exist.

As per discussion below, the Monarch as Head of State still has emergency reserve powers to appoint/dismiss a PM, and the doctrine is that this choice is one of the few occasions on which ministerial advice is not binding on the monarch. Mrs. Thatcher, for example, could not have given binding advice in 1990 that she remain as PM and have a General Election as soon as she had arranged for the deselection of "treacherous" Tory MPs. In the event of a crisis of this type senior civil servants and the heads of the police and armed forces might well act in the monarch's name, who knows.Paulturtle (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From a strictly legal point of view, the Monarch still has formal powers to change governments, alter the course of legislation and intervene in the nation's political life. The fact that these powers have not been exercised in the UK for some time does not negate their existence. As recently as 1963, the Queen chose Douglas-Home over Rab Butler to become PM when the Cabinet could not decide. Then, in 1975, she exercised her powers to remove the Australian PM. Until there is a formal pronouncement on the extent of the Monarch's powers, either by case-law or Parliament, the article should not be changed in the manner proposed above. I do not know of any "serious books" on UK constitutional law which negate the Monarch's powers; at best, there are some comments to the effect that exercise by the Monarch of her powers might lead to a constitutional crisis. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Those two examples are messy myths. In 1963 the Queen invited Douglas-Home to form a government on the advice of the resigning Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan. She did not chose him herself. Douglas-Home did not actually accept the invitation until he had first been formally elected party leader at a meting. The real issue there was the process by which it was decided that Douglas-Home's name would be the one put forward.

In 1975 it wasn't the Queen who dismissed the Australian PM, it was the Governor General. (The Queen declined to get involved despite petition from the outgoing Australian Speaker.) The 1975 case is an awful mess because several constitutional principles clashed and the line of argument the GG followed was that as the parliament had denied the PM supply the PM should have resigned and when he didn't he had to be dismissed. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not myths but historical actualities which are both cited in a number of works on constitutional law in support of the existence of the Monarch's powers. What is a myth, however, is the idea that an outgoing PM makes a binding recommendation to the Queen regarding his successor. According to constitutional convention, the Monarch must appoint the person who is most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons; this is a judgment which she can make herself although understandably the views of politicians weigh heavily. Returning to the Macmillan succession, I can do no better than quote directly from Richard Lamb's volume on the Macmillan years: "It would certainly have been in Butler's power as Deputy Prime Minister to have instructed the Cabinet Secretary to discuss the succession. [...] With a Cabinet meeting called, Butler in all likelihood would have emerged as Prime Minister for with his letter of resignation Macmillan no longer exercised any power. The Palace gave the Queen the wrong advice in recommending her to summon Home and ask him to form a government." The procedure for the election of the Conservative party leader, whilst being responsible for the situation arising, is a red herring. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not savvy with the Macmillian situation, but to confirm Timroll, the Australian Constitution does not give the Queen power to appont or dismiss prime ministers of the Commonwealth. According to the Constitution, she has only two powers: to appoint and dismiss a Governor-general, who governs by 'Her Majesty's pleasure', and to annul legislation up to two years after it has received the Royal Assent from the Governor-General.Gazzster (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The point with the Australian PM is not who actually dismissed him but the fact that it represents a modern exercise of the prerogative power of dismissal. Lamberhurst (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As Timroll said, the dismissal was controversial, not because the power to dismiss was in dispute, but because it involved conflicting constitutionasl principles. Should a government that cannot secure supply be dismissed, even before supply has been exhausted and even though it enjoys the confidence of the lower house? To this datre, the question has never been decidfed, and Kerr's actions may indeed have been unconstitutional.Gazzster (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no British constitution

English constitutional laws and the English Common Law don't apply to Scotland whilst Scottish constitutional laws don't apply to England. Under the ruling in Sunderland -v- Thoburn (aka Metric Martyrs) the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Act are constitutional laws and of course their territorial extend is limited to Wales and NI respectively establishing a distinct Welsh and Northern Irish constitution. There are therefore four constitutions in the UK for the four member states and this article is therefore fundamentally incorrect. wonko (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

England (of which Wales was already part; Ireland was technically a separate Kingdom until 1800 - hence Pitt's attempt to emancipate Catholics in 1800 when he legally merged Ireland into the UK) and Scotland merged to form Great Britain in 1707. In practice of course Scotland sent MPs and peers to Westminster but in theory a new legal entity was being created.

The Thorburn case is already discussed in the article and Laws LJ was quite explicit that European Law (in that case, ministers decreeing in 1994 that metric measures be used under powers granted to them in the 1972 European Communities Act, contradicting a "lesser" 1985 Act which declared imperial measures still legal) is only valid in so far as Parliament recognises it. The point about constitutional laws is that they are not subject to "implied repeal" - i.e. the 1972 Act was not deemed to have been repealed the by later 1985 Act of Parliament which clashes with it. They do not create a separate jurisdiction - the 1972 Act could still be repealed explicitly if the UK decided to leave the EU (doing away with the Scottish Parliament would be politically unthinkable but that is a different matter).

Constitional doctrines evolve over time and there may come a day when judges rule that European law takes priority over UK law, or that the constitution of Northern Ireland cannot be amended without the agreement of Dublin or some other group of people, or that UK law holds no sway over Scotland. We haven't yet reached the former position and the latter still belongs in SNP pamphlets.Paulturtle (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I just add a comment regarding the above text. The points raised regarding Scotland are not mere whimsy or fanciful diversions, they are based around fact. The union of 1707, in no way altered the constitutional situation in Scotland, this was confirmed in the famous case at the highest constitutional court in Scots law, the court of session, in McCormick v LA [1953] ScotCS CSIH_2 (30 July 1953). Source; http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1953/1953_SC_396.html.

The importance of this cannot be understated, as the court of session is the highest constitutional court in Scotland. Importantly, Lord President, Lord Cooper states 2 extremely important points in relation to the Scottish constitution and the articles of the TREATY of union of 1707. These 2 points are as follows;

1. The Lord President stated: 'The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.'

2. The Lord president also stated: 'I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be "absolutely sovereign" in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.'

Both these points are fundamental to understanding the notion of a 'British constitution' , in that there really is no such thing. There is an English constitution (for what it is), based in part upon the principles espoused in the English Bill of rights of 1689 (VERY different to the Scottish claim of right of 1689), and older documents such as the magna carta, but importantly, none of these existed within the scope of the union treaty when England and Wales joined in political union with Scotland.

I wholly understand the concept of a constitution being based around unwritten codified norms and standards, as is suggested to be the case with a British constitution detailed in the article, but in reality to adhere to such a notion as being British as opposed to being purely English, is not backed up by any evidence. To fully understand this, you need to fully understand the nature of the Union treaty agreed to, with the respective acts of the English and Scottish parliaments in 1706 and 1707. The treaty is in its nature a bilateral treaty between two separate sovereign countries, and as such is beyond domestic law of either England or Scotland. It is in fact a treaty under international law. As stated and made clear by the court of session on numerous occasions, there is no provision in the treaty articles from which Westminster derives it sole authority over Scotland, whereby the newly formed parliament of Great Britain (Westminster) can subsequently amend or alter the terms of the treaty. This is important, because as such, the union treaty makes NO provision to allow Westminster to alter the constitution of Scotland, and as such it has remained unaltered since prior to the union of 1707.

I understand that it is easy (although I think it is sloppy) to talk of a 'British' constitution, which is unwritten, but in reality it is only true if you choose to ignore the constitution of Scotland. This has little to do with the rather ill-founded comment above of 'SNP pamphleting', and more to do with historical and factual accuracy. Although a British constitution is a notion which many subscribe to, the reality is it is based upon purely English concepts. Saying something exists over and over again, doesn't mean it really does exist.

Sources;

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1953/1953_SC_396.html

http://www.nls.uk/collections/rare-books/collections/union-of-parliaments

There are at least two other aspects which this article misses. Firstly, that were you to consult Westminster, they would technically describe it as the 'UK constitution'.

Secondly, N.Ireland can never be included as part of a British constitution, as it is not part of Great Britain, but has been part of the UK since 1928 following Irish independence and partition. — Preceding unsigned comm.ent added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course that there is no constitution of the United Kingdom.

But this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a place that contains, or holds, all knowledge and truth about the world, universe and beyond. Or that will hold them in any foreseeable future. So, keep your calm and carry on with your life. Because this page is here to stay claiming that there is such constitution.

93.138.116.93 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unitary state

The very last line reads

"These distinctions were created as a result of the United Kingdom being created by the union of separate countries according to the terms of the 1706 Treaty of Union, ratified by the 1707 Acts of Union."

This needs clarified. The treaty was created in 1706. The English parliament passed the 'union with Scotland Act' in 1706, which effectively said that England agreed to the articles of the treaty. This was then followed by the 'Union with England Act passed by the Scots Parliament in 1707, which effectively said that Scotland agreed with the articles of the treaty.

This is actually quite important historically, as there exists some considerable confusion in some sources regarding the treaty of union of 1706, and its final approval in 1707.

So, to be clear, the articles of the treaty were agreed in 1706. The English parliament passed the respective union act in 1706. The Scots parliament followed with the respective act passed in 1707.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707.