Yeah, I do agree - not just that, but its correctness. That would be because the role as such just appeared due to the Hanoverian dynasty's ascession, and had no need for recognition. However what I would say is that he was still effective PM even without title.

Also if it was a mocking role (which I would argue against) then why would it be that it was that role which Kings such as George III sought to control over key issues - note the removal of Pitt the Younger from office.



Thats just a sign how Parliamentary Convention Changes

The Treasury is still seen as the senior department of the Civil Service though.

Parliament could vote to leave (technically).



Actually it's partly written (Statute Law), but it's completely uncodified (Statute Law can easily be repealed or amended).



Only via General Election, which is a fairly new phenomena - and that's only a judgement on the current Parliament - not the institution (which still has the power to do as it wants). I'm not familiar with Acts passed via referendum, do you know of any? Neither the UK government nor Parliament are bound by the results of referenda either.




Fair enough - it's a change I don't like though, and I still argue that it affects the sanctity of Parliament.

The government are about to do it again by considering allowing Lords to answer MPs questions in the Commons, a move which would completely disregard an important moment in English history.

Sorry, my poor explanation. Before Campbell-Bannerman, the role was called First Lord of the Treasury. With Campbell-Bannerman the title was added as that of Prime Minister. Before that point, opposition MPs would use the term Prime Minister as a derogatory one for whoever led the Government. For general ease of explanation, the term Prime Minister is used retrospectively for those that held the role of First Lord of the Treasury before Bannerman.

Hence the last sentence





Yes - but many previous Acts and suchlike that have been passed by Parliament are now regarded as fundamental, such as the Magna Carta and Human Rights Act.



General Elections are only as 'fairly new' as the transition of Power from Sovereign to Parliament. The only arguable point here that I can see is that original Parliaments were not democractic, which they are pretty much now. (after the various Representation of the People Act's, eg, 1832, 1918, 1928, 1969.)



Yes but the institution is controlled by the people in it, and changing the people in it is pretty lilely to change the approachs taken by the Parliament. (thus elections must be held within a set timeframe, which I think is protected by the Lords.)



Any rejection of the decisions produced by a referendum would cause a constitutional crisis, there can be no doubt of that. A government may re-try passing the idea in referendum but should it just go ahead anyway with its original ideas against the opinions of the population it would cause its own collapse. Quite simply it is 'not the done thing' hence why I say that Acts passed by referendum are entrenched, or indeed Acts that are rejected by them as well.

As for examples of Acts passed via referendum, as a post-legislative refrendum the 1975 one would suffice. However there are also direct examples, eg The Scotland Act 1998 which followed the 1997 refendum, I would assume similar Acts exist for Wales and NI.

These acts are effectively entrenched now and in my opinion it would require a referendum to try and repeal or achieve a different result. (for instance the Irish vote on the EU around a month ago, it was first rejected and Parliament could NOT then go ahead and pass the legislature, it HAD to call a second referendum).

I would agree, but when I saw this, I couldnt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lord ... 714_-_1905

Notably:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_He ... politician)

Which I found pretty interesting, I knew that Smith had a pretty much full monopoly on railway station goods sales but didnt know he was also a senior politician.

(sorry for the wiki links, but its the only one that would have a list form of the position holders...)

Magna Carta has actually been mostly repealed by Parliament, in most cases superseded by better protections. The Tories have also vowed to scrap the HRA. The Principles of the HRA might well be entrenched - but if we left the ECHR a simple Act of Parliament to re-address the powers of the Courts could easily sort that.



Of course, but the people in it can not change the power Parliament holds - only how MPs use it. We would need a whole new codified constitution to change the system of government. As for elections the timeframe is contained within one of the Parliament Acts (I forget which), and could easily be amended (it's within Parliament's powers to do so - it won't of course, but it could).

All this talk of fixed term Parliaments is also going to be enshrined in Statue Law (if it goes ahead), which again could easily be amended or repealed.



Unpopular certainly, but it would have to be a major issue of some importance to bring down the government. Parliament can do as it damn well pleases - constitutionally it is not bound by the result of any referendum. As to whether it's advisable to ignore the result, that's an entirely different matter (for example if a referendum were held and the outcome supported bringing back the death penalty, would you want Parliament to ignore it? I would).



That's more Parliament drafting legislation as a result of a referendum, I thought you were suggesting actual Bills that were subsequently approved via referendum.



Parliament could - constitutionally - quite easily rip up the Scotland and Wales Acts without hesitation. It won't of course, but it could. Both Acts also afford Westminster the power to overrule both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly anyway.

Also, what happens in the Irish Republic is their business, and in their case they DO have a codified constitution which limits government power. In the United Kingdom the public could have voted no to the Lisbon Treaty and Parliament would have been well within its rights to ratify it anyway.

Yes, but that just wont happen (or atleast is extremely, extremmmeeelly unlikely too).



I believe it would just be called the 'parliament act' (although there were a few).



Quoted from the UK Parliament Website:



Thus it would require acceptance from both houses (unless this has been repealed), one of which isnt elected and has different interests to the elected. Just bear in mind if we are going for technicalities then the Queen could easily reject any bill. It would cause a consitutional crisis, but we seem to be ignoring them, so of course its entirely possible.



But this now moves onto the whole prospect of the French system, where a political system cannot exist for a long period of time because the people keep deciding to change it, isnt it now the fifth republic?? The British 'constitution' has consistantly proven to be one of the most adaptable and stable over a long period of time (dating back millenium, it merely progresses).




As could the laws in many countries, just take the US for example, entrenchment only offers a 2/3 majority in the two houses of senate followed by a 3/4 agreement from the states, the people arent asked in this instance, so this law could be repealed.

There are few laws which could not 'technically' be repealed, but many which would practically be repealed, unless you suggest we adopt a stance such as that in Germany in the example of Article 1 & Article 20 are protected by a following Article (now that number I really cant remember!.



But this example is one that is not one that would be addressed by referendum, it is not a topic such as devolution which fundamentally changes the constitution and so would never go to referendum. This is the MP's job as our representatives, that why they are elected.



As said the 1975 referendum was preceeded by the Act that was effected on 1st Jan 1973, this referendum did just that, approved the bill, if voted against it would have been a vote against that Act/bill (this situation was created because the effect wasnt fully anticipated before it was effected).

As to the whole pricinple of creating the Bill to be approved by referendum, in most cases (the rest are regional) it is the idea that is being decided, the fine print would create further arguements over meaning, people on the streets dont have time to analyse the fineprint, it is mostly a case of for or against. Of course this brings into play the idea of the merits and pitfalls of referendums in the first place.



It could, but bear in mind that Scotland and Wales are individual coutry's in their own rights, they are perfectly within their rights to retaliate and leave the United Kingdom (they could quite easilt boycott the British Parliament) only through various Acts of Union were the countries joined initially, yes it is unlikely, but all goes here

Apart from the theorectical, it could do it consitutionally, but it wouldnt....



Yes, but the idea that any idea passed by referendum is pretty much any democratic state would require referendum to alter that decision is a paramount ideal. Which is why you wont find many referendums around the world that the government loses (why would a government want to enter something it might not win?) but decisions are accepted as binding until proven otherwise.

I think the length of argument presented here does serve an interesting point, in that our current political system is far too complicated. An actual document for a constitution would make things an awful lot clearer.

I can't handle it any more, you two are clearly products of education. Too many quotes, too little interest. Glad you're both interested though. That's good at least.

I would partially agree with you, however the two great lumbering beasts which are the examples of each instance (uncodified and uncodified) being the US and the UK (these both predate other consitutions massively, ours being undated and the US being 1787) have their disadvantages and advantages.

I think (correct me if im wrong) that Thomas Jefferson commented that the US constitution is 'wax in the hands of judiciary' simply due to the idea of judicial review that is effectively deciding the constitution.

Also many codified constitutions are seen to stagnate over time, the US has had something like 27 revisions whereas our own has had countless ones. We probably wouldnt notice this in our lifetime but in future years the entrenchment given may restrict progression and produce a state which was not the best possible.

One definate advantage of the US constitution (specifically) is the ability to vote for your representatives and Vice-President/President in two Seperate votes. This would meant hat you actually vote for your 'leader', although perhaps more power is bestowed to the President than our own PM. Also there is a probability of a minority government in the US (alot higher than in the UK) where the houses of senate has for examples more republicans than democrats whereas the President is a Democrat can produce indecisive governments.

This is just a single example, but it really is swings and roundabouts for each system with it being hard to seperate the definate advantages of either system. Not to say I dont agree with you - I think codification would have a quite a few advantages, however it would also shift power quite dramatically (it would require a Supreme Court with powers for example, unlike our own version) so would certainly require a few years planning!

Another problem is that codification ussually occurs after major political upheaval (in the US instance the independance from Britain). At the moment we dont seem to have (personal opinion) the right conditions for codification to occur.

Yes Jon. Government is suppose to serve the people by governing them with their consent. Anything more, is unwanted and unnecessary.

Er, I am talking about the abilities of Parliament - which includes the House of Lords. I am not just describing the powers of the House of Commons - that's a whole different kettle of fish.



You're quite right, the Queen does indeed have the power (constitutionally) to reject any Bill. You're quite right that this would also cause a Constitutional question/crisis. However, that's only because there are now limits on the powers of the Monarchy by agreement at first and now Convention. The Queen does indeed still hold many reserve powers - some of which she has exercised during her reign - and rejecting a Bill is one of the powers she holds.



That's because the French keep revolting. Whether you attribute the lack of British revolts to the fact the Constitution is flexible or that British people are just rather indifferent to how they are governed is up to you. We did however have a Civil War once and overthrew the Monarchy. For the shortest of times Britain was a Republic.



It's not really a 'law' per se, it's the Constitution and you're right it has been amended. However, this is much more difficult to achieve than simply amending a Statue, which only requires a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.



I am not familiar with any law that can not be 'technically' repealed - as I've asserted before the power of Parliament is not limited*

*in general. There are precious few exceptions, but these mainly involve agreements between Parliament and the Crown.



Yes I am well aware that we live in a Representative, Liberal democracy. It was a moot point anyway because it's actually illegal under Community Law, I was just using it as an example of where Parliament might wish to ignore public opinion. That particular referendum was not really a referendum on the Act as it was to determine if the United Kingdom should remain in the EEC. And even then the government only called for a referendum as the Cabinet was split on the issue.



I think you're being rather condescending to the man in the street there, Parliament is not the be-all and end-all of scrutiny. MPs are often criticised for not appreciating how laws will affect the "man in the street". It's often up to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (formerly the Lords) to sort out the mess.



Scotland ceased to be a Country in its own right in 1707, as did England and Wales. Before even that Wales was incorporated into England. Of course that doesn't stop them ceding from the United Kingdom, but it certainly wouldn't be a clean break.



You seem to misunderstand. The only reason the Irish Republic could not ratify the Treaty is because their Constitution requires them to put the issue to referendum, and thus they could not proceed to ratify the Treaty without public consent - the outcome was binding. The United Kingdom however has no such restraints - sure, it would be unpopular, but Parliament would be well within its rights to continue to ratify the Treaty without public approval.

Oh, and just a quick note to say thank you for debating - nothing quite like a good debate to sharpen the mind.

*Also gives thanks to you for debating*



Ok then, but I was only trying to avoid this because generally the mainstay of power in British politics has historically been divided between the three major bodies - Commons, Lords, Monarch. Thus I feel it is an important distiniction to make that the Lords should generally be seen to be slightly 'above' if that is the right word normal politics. The reason I think its important is that over all three bodies (and perhaps the judiary and EU law should now be taken into account) sovereignty should be held - and so the distinction between each house of Parliament should be made (after all, if election timing wasnt an important issue then why would it be singled out for the Lords to retain a form of Veto over?).

The problem in our consitition is that there are precious few methods of restraining a government from exacting whatever policy it wants, so conventions are one of the strongest defences the people have. The conventions of following a referendum result, the Queen not rejecting Bills and the PM being leader of the largest Party are all embedded into our constitution though not written. They are 'given' as such, I wonder what peoples reactions wuld be if the Tories won the next election and the Queen decided she wanted to keep Brown as PM...



Though it should probably be added that although the transfer of real power occured hundreds of years ago (thinking early 1800's during the Napoleonic Wars) pretty fully to Parliament it is only now that these are being reinforced through Acts (such as in the last year or so Royal Prerogative for example the ability to dissolve Parliament has passed away from the Monarch and now requires acent of the Hous of Commons to occur, also the ability to declare war.) The whole point behind this is that Parliament has effectively exacted these powers for hundreds of years, the Queen although techinically in posessiton of these powers by convention cannot use them.

This would link back to the whole ability of Parliament to just repeal any Act it pleases, it wouldnt be quite to simple, because although it may have those powers it does not have the ability to exact them due to convention. (this isnt universal, and is mainly applicable to the topic of referendum).



Yes and the reason for revolt - dissatisfaction. Without dissatisfaction there will be no revolt. The whole advantage of our constitution in its current format is the ability to change, it did that in 1832 with the Great Reform Act, in 1918 with the Representation of the People Act. The uncodification allows the constitution to adapt to the current demands of the populace, something which a codified version doesnt. In many ways it helps to prevent revolution, so yes I would say that I attribute the lack of British revolts due to the flexibility of the constitution.



Its constitutional law (effectively constitutions once codified are laws). But as to it being more difficult to amend than a Statute, yes I agree, there are more hoops to jump through - but are any of them actually involving the population as a whole? and if they do, is it fair representation (Referendum are also synonymous with tyranny of the majority, the best example of embraced 'direct democracy' is Switzeland, yet is that any better than representatives who are able to make more informed decisions).



That was more a reference to universally across the modern democracy's. As to say that in all countries it is possible for the constitution to be changed - and that not only ours has this downfall.



Yes, but it was the Act (European Communities Act 1972 I think) that put us in the ECC, its repeal would reverse this. The Act determined that we were to enter the ECC, any result would be a opinion on that Act.



Which is surely for the best, the government should only need to call referendum when actually required, yes they occur to stop governments splitting yet they also solve major constitutional issues (it is unlikely a tax or similar issue would divide the cabinet in such a way).



Not really, there are a number of disadvantages of referendum, such as the peoples inability to vote on the issue, instead giving a vote of confidence on the Government (and there is evidence to support this, ill try and dig some out if you require). Also the people can be swayed by the press, Joe Bloggs off the street will likely know only what the papers and press put across, without which he wold be totally benighted; his only option is a biased press, which can be distorted to suit. (Im sure Murdoch would have a field day).



Yet there is no easy viable direct democracy method to be applied largescale because it is unviable. After all, the people vote these 'representatives' in - surely the implied solution would be simple, choose someone else to vote for. (which is problematic because many vote for the Prime Minister and not the MP, or atleast have divided internest, but thats just a sign of a bad voting system and another issue entirely).



Never know, we might find out soon



Yes, but the point was (and this applies to the UK as well as the majority of other democratic states) that the Irish Republic had previous held a referndum on the issue in June 2008 on the issue, following this the Government was unable to just pass the idea anyway, they HAD to go back to referendum to decide the issue (there are no British examples because it has thus-far never been required).