NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this topic is only semi-serious. I'll answer it later because I'm not inspired at the moment.

Britain lacks a consitution. Sure we have the magna carta, and a whole load of other sheets of paper that make up our laws, and sure I prefer them to a constitution, but what the hell.


If you had to write a constitution for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what would it include? For extra "amusing me points", if you were to take a stereotypical British view to writing a constitution for our island nation, what would it look like?

I have no idea why I thought this would be a good topic. But pleeeeease make me laugh! I'll give people cookies! Extra points for believability and/or absurdity too!

Compulsory forelock tugging when wearing a cloth cap.

I'd write a secular, libertarian, ultra-capitalist constitution that advocated equal rights for all, special privileges for none, and a friendly, neutral, non-aligned foreign policy.

we do actually have a constitution. It's just that it' made up of a bunch of customs. And every single law still in force today.

I'd make a very socialist/democratic costitution. Probably with a high degree of Direct Democracy.

we do actually have a constitution. It's just that it' made up of a bunch of customs. And every single law still in force today.

I'd make a very socialist/democratic costitution. Probably with a high degree of Direct Democracy.

Socialism isn't democratic. Socialism is big government, which is a detriment to liberty. Government is a necessary evil, of course, but it should be extremely tiny and, other than protecting its citizens from crime, should, for the most part, keep out of our lives as much as possible.

Your opinion. Socialism is not incompatible with democracy. Quite the reverse.

we do actually have a constitution. It's just that it' made up of a bunch of customs. And every single law still in force today.

I'd make a very socialist/democratic costitution. Probably with a high degree of Direct Democracy.


Yes, but that's what I mean. it's not called "The British constitution". it's just a lot of laws that over time have come to represent the same thing, a solution which I feel is better than a consitution but that is not the purpose of the thread, which is to make a realistic and/or amusing one. :D

Your opinion. Socialism is not incompatible with democracy. Quite the reverse.

True democracy should favor no particular group. Socialism exploits the rich and gives special treatment to the poor. Plus, socialism is extremely totalitarian economically.

Yes, but that's what I mean. it's not called "The British constitution". it's just a lot of laws that over time have come to represent the same thing, a solution which I feel is better than a consitution but that is not the purpose of the thread, which is to make a realistic and/or amusing one. :D

Well Brits were complaining about government policies being "unconstitutional" long before there ever was an America with a written Constitution.

In a certain sense we take a similar approach to our own constitution even though it's written down. e.g. the Constitution says nothing about privacy, yet we sue over our "right to privacy." The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." but we now apply that to individual state legislatures too.

If we had the British system of Constitution = Current laws + Traditional customs + Stuff noone has been complaining about for a while, then when Pat Robertson whipped out the Constitution and started to argue that the government was fully entitled to establish a state religion because of how the amendment was worded people would just tell him "shut the fuck up, we have seperation of church and state here. I don't care if they didn't write that in, we've been doing it that way for 200 years, either shut up or pay up because you're becoming a political institution and aren't entitled to tax exemption anymore."

True democracy should favor no particular group. Socialism exploits the rich and gives special treatment to the poor. Plus, socialism is extremely totalitarian economically.

The point of socialism is to prevent the establishment of an unbalanced economic system. If the rich use their power to prevent the working and middle classes to accumulate wealth of their own by manipulating the cost of living and the prevailing wage then it ends up creating the conditions for a revolution.

Wealth redistribution is like mandatory car insurance. The government sees that it behooves you to take certain economic saftey precautions. In the case of a car the government steps in to make sure you pay into a fund that will pay you back when you screw up and crash your car, or wreck someone else's (yes, the company is private, but the law requiring you to buy this service isn't). That way the roads aren't full of unaccountable road hazards.

In the case of socialism the government steps in and imposes the same sort of fiscal responsiblity on corporations, depending on the degree to which it is embraced. Corporations either have to pay a living wage to their employees so that they can afford to pay all their bills, or the government takes money from everyone to make sure that as many people as possible can pay their bills. That way the country isn't full of plotting malcontents who want to overthrow the government, and wealth redistribution is less expensive than the troops required to pacify simmering rebellion.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, more power to local governments (and to the people they govern), stuff like that.

Socialism isn't democratic. Socialism is big government, which is a detriment to liberty. Government is a necessary evil, of course, but it should be extremely tiny and, other than protecting its citizens from crime, should, for the most part, keep out of our lives as much as possible.

Government isn't institutions and politicians. Government is the means by which the country is organized. Every government is exactly the size of its population. Especially in a democratic system where every single person is a part of the government by virtue of voting for it.

Socialism is the economic policy of a government that takes measures to see that people at all levels are protected. Capitalism is the economic system of politicians that see themselves as not needing protection, and so protections that the most vulnerable people enjoy are seen as something to be destroyed as costly and inefficient.

In a democracy, socialism shows that people are paying attention and know what their interests are. Pure capitalism shows that people think that the odds of them becoming the oppresors are sufficiently good that it justifies the risk incurred by abolishing economic protection for the working and middle classes.

if you were to take a stereotypical British view to writing a constitution for our island nation, what would it look like?

Hmn.. knowing me it would be an old, ratty and crumpled piece of paper with coffee mug staines on it. It would also have charming little purile doodles around the edges.

As for content I would make it a law that everyone will be force fed afternoon tea at four o'clock every afternoon.

A Sunday roast must be prepared in every household on each and every sunday even if the occupants are vegetarian or whatever (they can just eat the veg and give the meat to their cat).

Businessmen will have a special uniform, black pinstriped suit, umbrella and bowler hat.

Every citizen will have the right to hunt grey squirrels with specially trained packs of climbing dogs.

Anything American entering the country must be sanitized, strip searched and put under quarenteen for three years.

All members of the Liib Dems will be forced to wear wigs.

University fees will be means tested on levels of excentricity.

The LTA is allowed to use landmines and snipers to ensue that Tim wins Wimbledon.

All citizens with strange accents will have quotas for traditional sayings. eg. "Ooh Arr" for farmers and "Chim chimerry chim chim cheroo" for cockney window sweeps.

Cumpoulsory playing of cricket whilst drinking tea. Perhaps tea would be the only legal beverage, excluding Bitter and other ales.

We could even rebuild the British Empire, and have people treack 'round Africa wearing those silly white hats...

I'd have it like it is, excapt with a few admendments:

-Ban Crazy Frog,
-ban chavs/Townies
-Make rugby compulsory in schools,
-wealth redistrabution,
-ban on the mail, express ect.