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)

Reserve Power to Appoint Prime Minister

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 a difference between powers which exist in theory but by convention are no longer used ("convention" being a specific term for a constitutional custom which is observed as if it had the force of law, e.g. nowadays it is a convention that the monarch will always assent to an Act of Parliament, something that could not be taken for granted in the early 1800s, or that the monarch will always accept as binding the Prime Minister's advice on which ministers to hire and fire - in these cases the monarch's involvement in the process is little more than legal fiction) and reserve powers to appoint and dismiss a PM (and until recently, to dissolve Parliament - it was held by academics that the monarch most certainly could have refused a dissolution if an alternative government existed) which in practice aren't used but which in principle could be.

It's also pretty clear that in Elizabeth II's reign the monarch has, as a matter of practice, simply declined to get involved. This was not the case in Queen Victoria's time, when the Prime Minister had no right to sack or overrule a Cabinet Minister and "asking somebody to form a government" was still a real question - the official party leaders the 14th Earl of Derby and Lord John Russell both tried and failed to put Cabinets together in 1855, so the Queen had to appoint Palmerston, whom she and Prince Albert detested. On occasions the Palace did have to pick between the Commons leader and Lords leader from the same party if neither was a former Prime Minister, and sometimes bow to political reality: Gladstone (former leader and PM, loathed by the Queen) in 1880 only after the two official Liberal leaders Lord Granville and Hartington had first declined, Lord Salisbury rather than Stafford Northcote (whom the Queen had regarded as senior a few years earlier, until his position declined under attack from Randolph Churchill) in 1885, Lord Rosebery rather than Harcourt in 1894 (Gladstone's advice that he be succeeded by Spencer was ignored) - even Baldwin rather than Lord Curzon as late as 1923. We do know something of the advice which was given in 1923, but what advice Queen Victoria (or Ponsonby, or whoever was advising her) took in 1880, 1885 and 1894 I know not. In 1955 and 1963 the Palace expected to be given a recommendation by the party grandees, and if Butler let himself be outplayed both times, that was his loss.Paulturtle (talk) 00:02, 28 July 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)

The article is called “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. In common parlance the term “British” is used as “United Kingdomer” never really caught on. I dare say Ulster Unionists aren’t too upset, and those who are upset would call themselves “Irish” whatever term was used, so it’s not a matter of vast importance.

It is not “incorrect” to say that there is one constitution in the UK. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland & Welsh Assemblies are devolved bodies (see Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998). They have only such power as has been granted to them by Westminster (in the case of the Scottish Parliament, all powers other than those which have been retained). The matter is – deliberately - muddied a bit by whichever politician it was in the late 1990s declaring that the “Scottish Parliament” was meeting for the first time since 1707, and the Scottish Assembly changing its name to “Scottish Parliament”, but nonetheless that is what the law says at the moment. By the Sewel Convention, Westminster will take no action affecting Scotland without a legislative consent motion by the Scottish Parliament. As a matter of practical politics it would of course be lunacy for Westminster to vote to abolish the Scottish Parliament against Scotland’s wishes – Scotland would probably declare independence – but technically it has the legal right to do so, and I should think you’d be pushed to find a lawyer who would tell you otherwise.

The issue of the Union is separate. You are quite right that the union of 1707 was a bilateral treaty between two sovereign countries, and that this tends to be under-appreciated south of the border. Funnily enough, I raised this exact point with a Conservative politician at a speaker meeting about three years ago, who brushed me aside with a response to the effect that “Parliament created the Union and Parliament can vote to change it” before inviting the next question. On a practical level, the politician was right – if the Union is ever dissolved Parliament would dissolve itself and then meet again without the Scottish MPs, and academic lawyers would write learned articles explaining that Westminster was now technically a new legal entity. After a decent passage of time, independent Scotland would quietly repeal the long-forgotten Act of Union for the sake of wiping the legal slate clean, which is basically what happened in Ireland two generations ago. But one hopes that if David Cameron were to suggest any such thing in Cabinet the Attorney-General would have a quiet word to explain that whether the UK Parliament, or the Scots unilaterally, can legally dissolve the Union is something of a legal grey area.

You write that there is no such thing as a British constitution and that there is a separate Scottish constitution, and that this was affirmed by Lord President Cooper’s judgement in MacCormick v Lord Advocate [1953]. He did not actually say that – his comments simply imply that there is a separate tradition of constitutional law in Scotland, with sovereignty vested ultimately in the people (Declaration of Arbroath, Buchanan, various Claims of Right etc). Clearly, Lord President Cooper and his colleagues wanted to overrule Lord Guthrie who had initially ruled that the British Parliament was absolutely sovereign to amend the Union in any way it pleased.

Lord President Cooper did not comment on Lord Guthrie’s initial claim that the Scottish parliament (pre-1707) demonstrated itself to be a sovereign body by abolishing the independent Scottish state. Lord President Cooper went on to say that the British Parliament cannot be equally empowered (“sovereign”) to alter any part of the Treaty because the Treaty expressly reserves powers of modification to the British Parliament in some areas and declares other parts of the Union to be irrevocable. The Lord Advocate also admitted that the British Parliament ‘could not’ repeal or alter [certain] ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union. Clearly, that implies that the British Parliament may modify some parts of the Treaty, but not all of them.

What form does this “Scottish constitution” take? Does it mean that a Scottish court can – like the US Supreme Court - strike down an Act as “unconstitutional”? Lord President Cooper expressly says there is no means to do so - other than Dicey’s practical point that an English-dominated Parliament would be very silly to pass a law which the Scots will not obey - although LP Cooper does suggest that there might be recourse (for an “advisory opinion”) to the international courts which were already coming into being in the early 1950s. It is also explicitly stated by Lord Russell that a Scottish court can use the ancient power to declare an Act “in desuetude” (abolished as obsolete) only if that Act is pre-1707 and clearly being treated as such by the community, and he reserved his opinion about what a Scottish Court might actually do about breach of Treaty Article 19 (Scotland’s separate legal system) or Article 25 (all laws of either Kingdom inconsistent with the Treaty are void).

Does the “Scottish constitution” mean that there is a separate Scottish government? No. In the same case Lord Russell pointed out that one of the first Acts of the new British Parliament was that there should only be one British Privy Council, similar to the pre-existing English Privy Council (the Cabinet as we know it evolved during the early eighteenth century).

I’m sure we’ll hear more of these arguments as the Scottish referendum approaches, so it’s worth looking to see what academic lawyers say at the moment. The best we can say, it seems to me, is that it’s a bit of a grey area to which no obvious clear answer exists.

This 2007 article by David Walker (former Regius Professor of Law in the University of Glasgow) is of some interest.

http://www.webcitation.org/65WHtQ2vK

Walker is pretty clear, incidentally, that Lord President Cooper’s opinion is obiter – legalese for a judicial aside which does not directly impinge on the case. The 1953 case was decided on other grounds, that the Queen’s title was fixed as “Elizabeth II” at her accession proclamation and that the 1953 Act was merely rubber-stamping it. A face-saving compromise was later proposed whereby monarchs would bear the higher numeral, e.g. any future King James would be “James VIII” in England as well as in Scotland.

Since 1707 Parliament has often amended the terms of the Treaty or parts of them (Walker gives the example of some issues to do with the Presbyterian Church in the nineteenth century). The Treaty specified that Scotland should have 16 lords and 45 MPs in the British Parliament – the number of MPs has changed and hereditary peers have been (almost) abolished. Article 2 says that the Crown is prohibited to “Papists” but nowadays there is talk of relaxing this. Walker is sceptical of whether Parliament had the legal power to amend the Union, but there is of course an obvious element of academic sophistry about this. The common sense observation is that Parliament often has, over the course of centuries, voted to amend many aspects of the Union without the sky falling in – to which Walker retorts that it did not necessarily have any right to do so.

This 1995 article by the late Prof Neil MacCormick (who was of course the son of the John MacCormick of the 1953 case) is also worth a read, if you can suspend your sniggers at his assertions - despite his disingenuous claims that this is “not a party political article” – that not only will the EU bring peace and prosperity but that the EU is better for democracy than sovereignty ever was.

(http://www.scottishaffairs.org/backiss/pdfs/sa11/SA11_MacCormick.pdf)

MacCormick argues that legal entities can come into being from treaties (like the EU) without having been specifically created by a single sovereign, and that - as in a Federal system - sovereignty can be divided among different layers of legislature, none of which can legally define its own powers. He does, however, argue that notions of 'Popular sovereignty' – either a minority seeking self-determination or the Scottish tradition that a constitution must always be subject to adoption by the whole people - belong to political theory (i.e. how law is recognised as valid) rather than a pure matter of law itself.

As I said earlier, constitutional doctrines evolve over time, and in the seventeenth century there were legal theorists who argued, no doubt with many learned precedents, that the King had the right to suspend existing laws (as opposed to vetoing them at the instant of passage, a right which the monarch still enjoys – but only in theory) or to raise taxes and keep a standing army on his own authority – all powers which were explicitly denied to the monarch in 1688. If the Stuarts had had their way absolute or near-absolute monarchy would no doubt have been established with full “legal” authority, followed no doubt by a French-style bustup a century later.

There may come a time when judges rule that EU law takes precedence over British law, or that Dublin is entitled to be asked to agree any change in the status of Northern Ireland, or that no constitutional change may take place without referendum approval – as opposed to these things being so, as now, only because Westminster says so. There may come a time when legal theorists argue that the present devolved Scottish Parliament has acquired a legal life of its own, answerable to the Scottish people, and represents the historic Scottish “constitution” – but we haven’t reached that stage yet, even if many Scots feel that that is morally the case. Under the Scotland Act 1998 anything to do with the constitution – not just relating to the (devolved) Scottish Parliament, but also the Crown and the Union itself - is reserved to Parliament at Westminster. There is legal appeal to the House of Lords (nowadays, the Supreme Court, which normally contains at least two Scottish judges) on Scottish constitutional issues, but not Scottish criminal appeals.

From the point of view of improving the article, we are already heading into pretty specialised territory, and I'm a bit reluctant to risk misleading people if there are academic writings more up to date than 2007 to which I don't have immediate access.Paulturtle (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming from an entirely different standpoint as to why there is no constitution, a constitution really only has one main purpose, it's there written by specialized author's to announce the government will make necessary promises to it's people eternally as an insurance for their protection, if the government breaks, repeals or acts outside of the constitution(s), then it merely acts as a warning.

I've also made an edit regarding a more balanced view of the matter based on the notion that the government doesn't have absolute power as those times have ended, it's fair for people to believe or doubt this as being the main benefactor of the article, since if an absolute-majority of people decided they no longer approved of acts coming from a certain politician, it wouldn't be practically true for parliament to be able to claim they're still ultimately in force and people can within their own right within this circumstance retaliate with a coup d'etal despite whatever law(s) was made that most like to have been made to possibly prevent them. There are only two types of laws; passive an active... The passive protect us from the active ones in which people can act if the passive ones are being crossed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Privy Council

I regard as completely wrong the assertion that there is no British Constitution. It is just not written down on one bit of parchment.

correctPaulturtle (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The first element is the abbreviation HMG , Her ( or His ) Majesty's Government. So there is a monarch and the monarch has a government. A monarch has authority over the kingdom.

The second element is the Act of Settlement, 1701 . This includes the clause :

That from and after the Time that the further Limitation by this Act shall take Effect all Matters and Things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom which are properly cognizable in the Privy Councill by the Laws and Customs of this Realme shall be transacted there and all Resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Councill as shall advise and consent to the same.

So the monarch's total power is delegated to the PC . And that is run by the Prime Minister, who can get any arbitrary result by selecting three cronies to sit for a hearing. Judges and tax collectors in practice require the authority of parliament. The armed forces do not.

This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It means that matters which are supposed to be discussed in the Privy Council were to be discussed there are not privately. The monarch still made the appointments, there was no doubt of his right to veto legislation which he was not willing to countenance and according to the wiki article on the Act of Settlement that clause was soon repealed anyway. As discussed above, the evolution of the Cabinet and the office of Prime Minister between 1688 and c1832, and the corresponding atrophy of the Monarch's powers as Head of Government (hence the phrase "HM Government") was a long, slow process. The Monarch's powers as Head of State (giving permission for a premature election, choosing a Prime Minister if there is no obvious choice) still exist but are no longer as actively exercised as they were by Victoria, Edward VII or even George V. Nowadays, Prime Ministers have become quasi-Presidential figures, but that is a comparatively recent development. The Army is reliant on Parliamentary authority under the 1688 Settlement, although despite the way Asquith lectured the King during the Curragh Incident it is doubtful whether, as recently as the First World War, either the King or the officer corps quite saw the Army as being entirely under ministerial control.Paulturtle (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I observe the constitution, I'm not an expert. So I will not hack any of the existing text for a month. I look forward to comments, preferably reasoned. Reg nim (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see exactly what your issue with the current text is, Reg nim? Thom2002 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Thom2002. My beefs are that the article ignores : 1) from the Act of Settlement 1701 our prime minister has the powers of a medieval monarch and 2) the government as the property of the monarch. Reg nim (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And the consequence that the British Parliament is primarily about money. Reg nim (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2013 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.140 (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Union is commonly referred to as "the Union of 1707", even if this is not strictly accurate. I'm not sure that this is really such a massive issue, although I don't have any issue with changing it.Paulturtle (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Attorney-General's statement

A great overview of the role and position within the constitution of the monarch and the heir apparent from the current Attorney General.

Read from para. 6 at the foot of page 3

Conventions and practices, including ones relating to the heir apparent and his "preparations for kingship". Quite a notable statement and possibly could be used to reference (and expand/correct) this Wikipedia article and others.

Can I ask editors to read through the document, especially from the bottom of page 3, as it is an excellent source and explains the situation (re: the monarch's/the PoW's role in British politics and government) clearly and concisely too. David (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

a question about this constitution

i am a student of political science and am studying british constitution,i have a question that is i have read that english constitution is unwritten but still we find its text in written form than why does it says that it is unwritten? Kindly clear my question and send answer on my account khadijawaheedahmed@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.222.244 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the article and stop being lazy. David (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlike many other nations

The statement "Unlike most other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document." was recently altered, removing the word "most" and with an edit summary stating that Britain has no constitution. I have changed it to read "many other". It is common knowledge that many countries have a "single constitutional document", but the changed sentence could be understood to imply that all other countries have such a "single constitutional document". Without a source , we should not state or imply that all or most countries have such a document. As regards the edit summary: sometimes the word "constitution", often capitalized, is used to refer to a single written document. This is not how the word is used here or in the many books on the British constitution. --Boson (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact very few nations have a single document which described their constitution. The US doesn't (for example). The document called "The Constitution" omits a lot of important constitutional information about how the US functions. What separates the US Constitution out is that it is subject to a form of entrenchment. So the UK probably has no entrenched fundamental document as many nations do. Francis Davey (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

confederacy like Tanzania??

I removed the following:

nor a confederacy (like Tanzania)

from the "Unitary state" section. The WP "Confederation" article makes no distinction between "confederation" and "confederacy," the "Tanzania" article asserts that Tanzania is a unitary state, and a Google search on

Tanzania confederacy

returns no relevant results.-Arch dude (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I'm sorry to have to say this, but this article really is a right mess, and recent editing has not helped. Argovian (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT OccultZone (Talk) 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot more than just me "fixing it". We need to come to an agreement as to the structure of this article for a start. Argovian (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that whilst other articles such as those on the Cabinet, the Monarchy and the Prime Minister receive so much attention from editors (and are largely good) this one does not, despite it being an important article for the United Kingdom which should sit at the centre of all these constitution-related articles. Argovian (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a need to be surprised, especially when the article's history section contains a huge list but no summary. 'History' and 'Administrative law' requires urgent attention. OccultZone (Talk) 14:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The History section was recently created and actually just lists the statutes that were previously in the Sources section. As I wrote just before, recent editing has not helped... Argovian (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The History and Administrative Law sections were rewritten earlier this year. Whizz40 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of the lede section Comment Spelling/grammar correction

"Others object to this principle as having an absolute validity, particularly in light of the UK's membership in the European Union, historical influences trending from previous eras suchlike the Age of Enlightenment and the sanctification of prominent documents that endorse human beings the freedom to normative morality of which primarily being the Magna Carta." This sentence is very long and makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anonymous573462 has made a large number of poor quality unreferenced edits which have not helped this article at all, I propose that they are reverted wholesale. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You might also like to look at the same editor's recent edits to Magna Carta, and the debate they have sparked on the Talk page there. GrindtXX (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence wasn't originally my own and I overlooked it's compatibility - The rest makes sense.

I've deleted as for now unless I find the time to improve on it.

The sentence WAS added by you here [[1]] unless you mean you copied and pasted it from elsewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am taking Anonymous's claim (at Talk:Magna Carta) to be "gone" at face value, and am reverting to the last clean version. Frankly, I have no idea whether there is anything constructive or useful among his/her edits; but they are so badly written as to be incomprehensible, and they are certainly not an improvement to this article. GrindtXX (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was from the same frame-working with a minor edit, I deleted it, grammar's not my strongpoint and you are urged by the policies to repair sentences rather than delete them. Grindtxx it's called a talk page and wasn't a debate since no one attacked my arguments which is dishonest game when people take away your content for no reason and please don't resort to rhetorical devices and remain mature. As for my own edit being reverted I'd like an explanation it's not against the rules to add sourced content. Reverting me "wholesale" doesn't make sense. - Please show me where the content on the top paragraph collapses. - I advice you read the second source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

@Theroadislong could you please remove the wikpedia sources and restore my work... The ncbi website works alone if the other must go aswell. Please.

@Theroadislong please talk with me here, the whole premise of the UK constitution is that it's written, unwritten and there would be external factors to consider (social and scientific as an example)... But no affirmed basis for a constitution has been given or can be because it's always up for dispute... I'm adding content that recognised the area of external factors and this is mostly comprised of the basis of human decision making without ignoring all human beings. This is something that would new to add for development, currently the page looks as though it's an inalienable property which can't even exist. Infact the UK constitution does imply a moral basis when regarding the coronation oath and the US constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson and when you read his works they were based on "The Jefferson's bible" so morality must play a part in the unwritten side of the constitution. There are sources such as;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm

Which states the UK constitution is uncodified (meaning no documental basis) as well as codified (with accepted documentation)... if we were to ignore the uncoded side too much it would look as though the article is insist that the constitution is based on documents which it is not. - So from this to your latest edit. Does proof for neurological morality require a link towards the UK constitution? (This would insist on a codified link). I'm asking you whether the criticism if fully fair regarding the external influences which are not given a code. - This is a difficult topic on the page that would open to new content regarding the other side of the constitution as being the unwritten areas.

See; An array of conventions, or unwritten understandings and customs, also surround the rules of constitutional behaviour. Although not supported by law, these are considered to be binding.

- from the link please and I hope you find the time to reply to this and ask whether the mark next to my source is necessary since it is accepted as a tie. - Also, should I add this link to solve the problem?

I read all three of those citations, which included someone's PhD thesis. None of them mentioned cognitive conscientious implications of the constitution. "Cognitive conscientious implications" appears to be a new phrase invented just for this series of edits. All the recent edits by Anonymous are OR. Removed. This looks like a pet peeve/theory of Anonymous: see his edits on Magna Carta and Freemen on the Land 90.210.241.251 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted again after Anonymous put them back without discussion on the talk page. The first citation is a BBC web page from 2004, not bad, but nowhere does it mention any cognitive implications or conscientious implications. These implications are simply inferences of Anonymous. The second citation is a PhD thesis, interesting enough, but again you will be searching in vain for anything supporting any reference to cognitive or conscientious implications. The third citation is about the neurobiology of moral behaviour. It has exactly nothing to do with the UK constitution, referencing it a grand total of zero times.

While I'm on the subject, "implications" is the wrong word to be using. "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications" is a meaningless phrase. How can an implication be a source? It cannot. Something can be implied from a source, certainly, but an implication requires a source.

Basically, Anonymous is talking nonsense. They didn't put up with it at Freemen on the Land, they didn't put up with it at Magna Carta, let's not put up with it here. .90.210.241.251 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And he's still reverting without discussion on the Talk page. Page 151 of the PhD thesis says nothing about either cognitive or conscientious approaches to the Constitution. The Neurobiology article has no reference to the Constitution of the UK at all (unsurprisingly). Reverting. 90.210.241.251 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Source 2 specifically calls it an implication. I put this in the description. I left a message here and no one replied and seemed fine with everything, so the burden of issue is on you for not discussing here first - no offence intended. Yes I left in the description and on here that source 3 has no direct link... if anything should be deleted it should be "Cognitive" and that link... but it's for detail, there's not much reason to remove it since it does bind with link 2.

Please don't slander me on separate cases, it's not mature, I didn't win and I am fine with that. You've been wrong about your main criticism and you're looking to attack me from elsewhere. "cognitive conscientious implications" is not underlined as a neolibelism... because it would say "Cognitive conscientious implications" and if you were to highlight all 3 words then it would all be underlined to a separate article. There are no rules on word usage... people regularly describe the links themselves. - Wikipedia promotes new fields of content to be added.

Cognitive is just for description. The 3rd link is showing it's relevant to the moral principle. The problem I believe is and please don't take offense, you're possibly attempting to look for a "coded" answer to an "uncoded" question, the only way to answer something "uncoded" is via description since attempting to define rather than describe contradicts the setting of "uncoded".

Source 2 specifically calls what an implication? Page number please, because I'm not seeing it, after reading that 3 times. Source 3 has no direct link at all: so you're fine with it being taken out... and yet you keep putting it back in. There is no reason for it to be in at all. It is irrelevant.

I'm not slandering you. What do you think "cognitive conscientious implications" means? Because it appears to be a meaningless phrase. What has these implications? The Constitution itself?

There are rules on word usage. You can't use the word banana to refer to an apple. Either explain what you mean in understandable English, or refrain from adding words you can't explain.

He who asserts must prove. You assert these links are relevant: prove it. 90.210.241.251 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Know the difference between describing and defining. Know also the difference between coded and uncoded.

coded means it has a specification uncoded means it doesn't

describing means it's giving the nature of defining means it's stating exactly what it is

so I am only able to describe based off "implications" since implications means there are alternatives as to what actually influences the UK but it's ofcourse unwritten. - Based on the other sources these are morally influenced and hence I describe with "cognition".

"conscientious" is also a quality as problems in relation to law must have care.

The only thing that requires consent, and I've mentioned whether it should be removed is the "3rd" link. - I'm not sure whether this is as much of a major matter because there's not much of a need to remove it unless someone disputes it itself as being completely unnecessary to the topic or having no merit which I'd more than go with but that's not happened as of itself independently. Rather from TheRoadIsLong as the ombudsman in the matter, I'm disadvantaged but nothing much I can do, the site is supposed to be open to different views, but some people using this site will attack the opposing view for censorship reasons especially when your field of view on a matter is less published or even difficult to implement etc. - My addition alone is somewhat on the basis of that conscious free-will exists and people usually prefer to use it in taking upon a moral choice is it's more clear to them and that's factor of the constitution just not mentioned itself, there's only that there is a contesting view to the popular norm mentioned, I'm just adding a branch. - The 3rd link is evidence for the part although not explicitly mentioning the UK constitution on that link, I'd have thought it would be general enough to the case and is does tie with the 2nd link.

You're the one who is asserting here and not me, I'm doubting the assertion that parliamentary sovereignty is absolutely valid and it is later stated that is something of a matter of debate.

So I am not within need of justification since I'm not presenting something "coded".

It's like doubting religion... no assertions are being made.

It's like asking which came first the egg or the chicken?

In this case; parliamentary sovereignty or normative morality.

parliamentary sovereignty is the chicken if you do further investigation since moral ideas of running a society existed before parliament. So parliamentary sovereignty is the assertion/coded area of the constitution.

And you should probably check out "Sentience#Philosophy and sentience" because the questions you have been asking me have been fallacious, I'm having trouble in detecting as to whether you are looking to troll me. - For example; You're essentially asking me to define consciousness as an argument against the text??? Link 2 does mention implications where I directed you to; chapter 5, page 151, and it states...

(The implication being that constitutional law is conceptually distinct from constitutional morality)

... if you read the latter conclusion from Chapter 6 page 174 (which would be inferred from the previous text and all text;

"It is sometimes said that Britian has no constitution, but that is a mistake. Britian has an unwritten as well as a written constitution, and part of the former consists in understandings about what laws Parliment should enact."

This isn't the whole Thesis but gives arise to the summary of implications described as ones "understood" or as I put it "conscientious" and if moral... therefore cognitive must fit since morality is argued as cognitive... I could replace "cognitive" with "moral" but cognitive appears more accurate since "moral" can generally be misinterpreted in much broader terms and "cognitive" is more on cue for description because of this.

I'm sorry to everyone reading this as I've had to be repeating myself in places, it's for clarity.

Firstly: SIGN YOUR POSTS. Put four tildas after the last line you write. Each time, every time. Secondly, DON'T USE THE EDIT SUMMARY ON THE MAIN PAGE FOR DISCUSSION. That's what the Talk page is for. Thirdly, you broke 3RR. You have previous form for this.

I still have no idea what you're trying to say with your edit to the lede. It used to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions." You changed it to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and cognitive conscientious implications." You added those 4 words. That means you assert that "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications." Or are you trying to say "The constitution has cognitive conscientious implications."? Because that's not what you've changed the lede to say. You've changed it to say that cognitive conscientious implications are an unwritten source of the constitution. Which, as I've said, is nonsense. Did you mean to say "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions, and cognitive conscientious implications."? Because that single comma, right there? Totally changes the meaning of the sentence. Clauses are important.

I also have no idea what you're talking about in reference to coded and uncoded. Do you mean codified and uncodified? Because again, those are very different things.

Now, let's get on to those cited documents you keep linking to. The point of those references is to show your source for the statement. In this case, to show your sources for the statement "The constitution has other unwritten sources, including... cognitive conscientious implications." Or, alternatively, "The constitution has cognitive conscientious implications.", depending on which you meant.

The BBC page does not support your statement.

The PhD thesis (by Stuart Lakin, a respected jurist) does not say anything about cognitive or conscientious implications. Your use of those terms is Original Research. It doesn't matter what is true: it matters what is verifiable. That's a core tenet of Wikipedia. Page 151 talks about constitutional LAW and constitutional MORALITY, not the Constitution itself. Page 174 is not a quote by Lakin: it's a quote by Dworkin. It talks about "understandings", not "implications". For you to say it talks about "implications" is just plain wrong.

The Neurobiology article is not directly relevant to the Constitution of the UK. You might as well link to an article on linguistics, or ethics, or the Bible: the link is too tenuous.

You accuse me of trolling. Previously you accused me of slander. You continue to make personal attacks against me.

Nobody is talking about parliamentary sovereignty. That's a strawman. We're talking about cognitive conscientious implications in the Constitution (whatever they are).

You do not have consensus on the changes you keep making.

Now, are you going to answer clearly? 2.122.138.91 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

2.122.138.91, I fear you're on a hiding to nothing trying to explain the subtleties of a misplaced comma to Anonymous. I am not trying to be offensive, but all the evidence – spelling and grammatical errors, choice of completely the wrong words, and sentences that mean nothing – would suggest that he is quite severely dyslexic. If it was just a matter of a few specific errors, then other editors could come along afterwards and tidy up – that's how wikipedia works. The problem here is that his prose is so confused that the rest of us have very little real idea of what it is he's trying to say.

However, wading through the treacle of his arguments above, I think that by "cognitive conscientious" he simply means "moral"; and by "implications" what he really means is something more akin to "foundations", or just "elements". In other words, the point he's trying to make is that the constitution, despite being largely unwritten, is underpinned by a basis of morality.

As for his sources, the BBC article and neurobiology article are clearly completely irrelevant; but Lakin's thesis is indeed about moral elements embedded within the constitution. Rather to my own surprise, therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that there may be something worth keeping in this edit. However, it needs to be worded completely differently, whatever statement is made should be explicitly attributed to Lakin, and it probably doesn't belong in the lede. GrindtXX (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Moral (and ethical) aspects of the Constitution? I'm surprised to find there isn't already something about them in there, to be honest: yes, there's probably a case for including something about them if we can find sources. There's a possible link to Natural Law, as there would be to any country's constitution. But I agree: not in the lede. Not until there's something significant in the main body 2.122.138.91 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Adhering to those problems; some of which I had made notice, the larger problem (which I doubt I can solve easily and would inevitably lead to a "consensus" agreement somewhere if something is going to be documented in the article relating to these moral foundations). Is that they're external to the body, whoever is in power in parliament writes their own codified constitution.

Going back, with also accounting the general view of the UK public, the reasons why parliament is allowed the power it has after several revolutions is because of the verbal agreements made during the Glorious Revolution, there will ultimately be nothing on paper "constitution-wise", the agreement was simply that the Sovereign at the time could only rule if they took instruction from the gospels... if this is broken then they are not sovereign. Parliament (or any government officials in office) like-wise must make an oath-of-allegiance to the Sovereign who is undertaking instruction from the gospels and can only be said to "serve the Sovereign" is by also contributing to sovereign duty.

This is perhaps the only sensible explanation out there as to why we have these "myths" regarding to why we're considered equals within society unless you're willing to show an alternate but I promise you after much personal research there is no other contract that exists is declaring equality in a constitutional manner. (The other mentions of equality are legislation, common law or human right conventions but none are strictly constitutional since they are prone to change; ie; legislation, a new bill to replace the old one, common law; within several cases, a jury decides a case differently and with ECHR, we leave the EU quite simply.)

So I don't know whether this is lost knowledge to the encyclopaedia that can not be restored until someone writes about it or "forgotten common sense" since I can only presume it was more evidently the case during that era. - Unless there's something that contradicts this all thesis all together, but when you read from the Bill of Rights, it almost sounds matching to this idea with "Catholics being unable to lead", "must be protestant", (coronation oath 1689; no alternative interpretation of the bible etc) The introduction holds against abuses of power that happened previously and The final paragraph of the Bill of Rights states it must "uphold the gospels and at the same time give parliament it's powers".

The only explanation I can think of, is that the bill of rights was a constitution but had to change with the times (ie; no longer are fire-arms any use to modern society, but interestingly they're not illegal, it's the lack of license that's illegal., then it became inferred that because the constitution had go through necessary changes to fit within society, the point of view arose that "since parliament changed the constitution once, it can change it again" and of-course at this can easily be mistaken for it an absolution. - Also if you look at the Bill of Rights and compare it to any other document in Parliment... it's not named as an "Act", I believe the only one that isn't an "Act" since there are conditions. A bill must also "be passed" to become law... Some people interpret this as parliament has contractual obligations (Freeman on the Land), I'm laying down no assertions, just that an explanation exists different to regular "Acts" and I am still looking for alternative explanations.

As for the gospels being mentioned in the bill of rights, the coronation oath (and possibily the Magna Carta had amendments) during the glorious revolution... I think it's safe to assume that they are completely relevant to the "moral constitution or basis". - There is just nothing on paper (in a coded form) that's arguing this.

If you could add your perspective on the matter it's most welcome, here is the original document of "The Bill of Rights", I haven't quoted from it word for word since the language is difficult but I've given my summary;

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

So I attempted to create a standpoint on the basis of an accepted view of a moral based constitution but this will be difficult given the circumstances and I don't know how to construct from here. If you agree with the perspective I've addressed that it is fairly clear the UK constitution does have a moral basis more based on "here-say". However the original text has been replaced with no mention of;

"III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made."

with

"And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God."

- Which could be classed an uncoded invalidation by some if it's being used to impeach the original text. (I would and think it's only fair it should be mentioned in some way.)

And you can see here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

So I'm suggesting that parliament must have made a mistake by not realising they were not allowed to change the Bill especially in regards to "III." for it's moral philosophical standpoint but arguably it may have had some influence with "freedom of religion".

The angle I am proposing; and on the basis that, if you look at the old bill of rights honestly, it would be completely dishonest to have the page frame-worked as it currently is without mention of the moral principles at all if you accept the inferences I'm making within the talk page.

So, would we be able to brainstorm a method into writing something following the rules and guidelines of wikipedia policy for an angle that falls within the "moral principle" criteria for the sake of the page holding a instituted stance of constitutional origin on the page as having a priority.

As for a late response to my revert on "freeman on the land", I had just joined wikipedia, and for people in support of the "freeman on the land movement" to make their related observations to be delusional (yes they affirm parliament is via consent which I can gather as to why they may think that but do not affirm a position with regards this).

- It's just a difficult angle but we could come down to something via the rules of;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

Since it states "Normally to be avoided", and I'm convinced this falls within the acception and can be accepted via;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Handling_disputes

consent in regards to some text supported by some link that can be accepted by the majority of us here if we can agree on something to be written that can be backed up. - Otherwise I'm convinced this is a dead-end for what I'm looking to mention. Conclusively I'm probably going to need some "unavoidable" leeway since it's special case. It depends on whether you all agree with the moral principle not being rejected by the constitution for all the reasons "historal and natural" listed above throughout the talk page. Whatever I can get to allow something in is probably going to be essential is where I'm getting at, if what's written is agreed with. (User talk:Anonymous573462) (talk) 3:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anonymous573462, your ability to express yourself in English is truly abysmal. You may think you're making a coherent argument: believe me, you are not. Your last sentence, for example, "Whatever I can get to allow something in is probably going to be essential is where I'm getting at, if what's written is agreed with", is just completely meaningless; it isn't English. It's as if you had chosen to come on here and insisted on writing in Polish, expecting the rest of us to learn Polish in order to converse with you. I for one don't have time in my life to learn a new language simply to understand what it is you're trying to say.

However, what is obvious is that you are still trying to argue a case. You have still not grasped the core wikipedia content policy of no original research: WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not there to be a platform for your (or anyone else's) opinions or arguments. It is there to report and summarise what has been said by other people who are accepted as having some authority in their field. The standard for "authority" is whether the claim has been previously made in a reliable source. If you think you have something fresh or different to say about the UK constitution, go away and publish it, in print or online, in some reputable medium. Then, and only then, will you have the legitimacy to come back here to add that point of view to this article. GrindtXX (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk: core content policies suggesting an alternative for the principle to be demoted to a rule. (An OR can be enacted by general consent for counter-claims to documented points of view if what is written can be agreed upon) is the summary.

If you wanna address pro's or con's of this idea, support or demote it that'll be great. Anonymous573462 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)