rebus_forever said:
i think in a generally reasonable society an unwritten constitution guided by principles is possibly a more efficient system than a strictly worded constitution in an unreasonable country, im not saying England is reasonable or America not just suggesting that an unwritten constitution isnt an end to freedom.
And "unwritten constitution" (beyond being an insulting oxymoron) means Parliament has absolute power.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
John Dalberg-Acton - 1870
And "Unwritten constitution" is only vague protection, secret power, constantly changing power and it of course will always be to the benefit of its "author". The PM can pronounce anything as being consistent with the "Unwritten Constitution" and no one could possibly prove his argument wrong.
It's a logical fallacy to ascribe significance to this imaginary document gives Carte Blanche to politicians in justifying their power, as they can imply it to mean anything!
Far better we realise our perilous situation, that the Law-makers are laws unto themselves, that there are so few democratic checks or balances. This is the job the media has had to bear, hardly the ideal entity(s) for the job but they are all we have got.
Freedom of speech is a privilege in the UK, a popular privilege with limited protection under law but NOTHING inhibits government from restricting it. No rights at all.
What a constitution is, is laws AGAINST the government that even even they must abide by when they make laws and when they try to apply them. One thing is blazingly obvious in Iraq and Afghanistan democracy alone is not enough, when it is backed by a poor constitution.
