Update democracy.md

[hiltona]

Proposal for an open source constitution. Sorry I couldn't work out the markup rules. Alex

[Floppy]

Interesting idea, and no worries about the markup - we can work on that!

In my view the power of a written constitution is that you can hold it, and read it, and understand your basic rights. In a way it's not to clarify the law, which is getting along OK, but people's understanding of it. Would be interested in other contributors' opinions as well...

[Floppy]

I'm going to block this temporarily as we don't want to merge as-is, but it's still open for discussion. 👎

[philipjohn]

Agree with James on this.

On this point specifically: "However, there are special Acts (Single European Act, Human Rights Act etc.) where the courts rule in favour of the special statute, rather than the newer one. So new laws have to comply with these special laws." - Acts of Parliament can always be changed, and too often ministers can affect change by order, rather than through scrutiny. A layer above that - a written constitution - would enshrine rights that could not be changed except by extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a 'super' majority in both houses AND a public referendum).

[hiltona]

I realise your very reasonable points, however…

1.   MPs will quote the “principle” that a parliament may never be bound by a past parliament. This is now nonsense in the context of how the Courts read the Human Rights Act and other pseudo-constitutional Laws.
   

2.   The act of trying to codify a constitution gives all those with a vested interest in not being bound by such a thing plenty of opportunity to kill it. My proposal is to define the power and function of a constitution but let it be populated over time with rights. This is in keeping with the values of open source thinkers.
   

3.   Parliament has its place, and requiring lots of referendums implies parliament cannot be fixed. I realise DRIP would have passed a 66% bar in the Commons, but it’s still a really high bar. It might not have passed in the Commons if MPs realised that it was incompatible with a previously passed part of the constitution. They might not have been willing to do so if it meant putting DRIP into the constitution. 66% is a cheap way of putting non-contentious items into a constitution without a referendum. I like the idea of a referendum being triggerable as an alternative to a parliamentary supermajority where it’s a more contentious issue. But you could make the bar 80% if that was thought more appropriate.
   

4.   My proposal is deliverable in one year and would evolve and strengthen over time. I think the constitutional framework would have to go to a referendum in any case. But a fully written constitution would take a decade or more and any government in that time would be able to kill it.
   

Alex

[PaulJRobinson]

Sorry I'm in favour of a single document defining our Constitution which will set out the rules of how Government and Parliament operates, as well as the rights of citizens. This should be clear, unambiguous, and easily accessible (ie not written in legalese) 👎

[hiltona]

I agree – but I fear a country can spend a decade arguing what should be in such a document. Starting a grassroots campaign to define the contents of a constitution would be quite fitting in the 800th year of Magna Carta but I haven’t signed up for that.

My proposal simply offers an opportunity to campaign on the principle of a constitution without getting bogged down in divisive details.

Just a thought

Alex

From: Paul Robinson [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: 02 September 2014 10:19
To: openpolitics/manifesto
Cc: hiltona
Subject: Re: [manifesto] Update democracy.md (#200)

Sorry I'm in favour of a single document defining our Constitution which will set out the rules of how Government and Parliament operates, as well as the rights of citizens. This should be clear, unambiguous, and easily accessible (ie not written in legalese) https://assets-cdn.github.com/images/icons/emoji/unicode/1f44e.png

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #200 (comment) . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/8232695__eyJzY29wZSI6Ik5ld3NpZXM6QmVhY29uIiwiZXhwaXJlcyI6MTcyNTI2ODczMiwiZGF0YSI6eyJpZCI6Mzc1OTA4MTl9fQ==--9b1f371f69b904f1b22ebb8b01b6cf0519c9e0b6.gif

[Floppy]

Having had a chat to Alex the other day about it, this is more about the process of creating the constitution, rather than whether there should be one. I'll try to turn this into a policy proposal so it's clearer...

[philipjohn]

Worth looking at what happened in Iceland, where they did have a crowd-sourced constitution, and I gather it didn't take that long. It fell at the final hurdle on a 'technicality' and we can learn from that...

[Floppy]

It "fell on a technicality" mainly because established wealth and power managed to kill it. At least, that's my understanding. It was a good process though.

[hiltona]

We all agree there should be a written constitution. It has almost zero public interest. We can't spend too much time on this.

Ideally a successful election campaign would help explain why we need a constitution

Alex

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Sep 2014, at 22:11, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

It "fell on a technicality" mainly because established wealth and power managed to kill it. At least, that's my understanding. It was a good process though.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[Floppy]

I'm going to close this and open another PR with the core idea of a "blank sheet" constitution, but written in a way that we can merge in.

[Floppy]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Agree	👍	:thumbsup:	1
Abstain	✋	:hand:	-1
Block	👎	:thumbsdown:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.