It is so wrong that children are not taught about the govt in schools.

The Magna Carta was really ahead of its time

It needed a constitution before, and what it doesn't need is monarchs and lords.

Yes, of course we need a written constitution. "Flexibility" just means uncertainty and too much power to the legal system, which is not democratic. Of course, there will also be a system for changing it; all countries have that! I suspect, once we see it written down that we will be horrified to discover how our country is governed!

The most depressing part of this was the Hansard poll which found that 54% wanted a strong leader who would break the rules. A certain Austrian comes to mind.

Does Britain need a written constitution after Brexit? Absolutely - the entire Brexit debacle has merely served to expose the rotten core of Britain's governance framework - Brexit is just one [very big and obvious] symptom of this much deeper malaise - it is HOW the UK is governed [or perhaps we should say misgoverned] that has acted as the primary source of public angst and hostility arising from Brexit inspired discourse. In short, Brexit was made right here in the UK - a large majority of those voting Leave in 2016 did so because they had been systematically marginalised, economically, socially and politically, for decades by the UK's broken governance structure - ALL votes counted in the EU Referendum so the masses who correctly viewed their voices as meaningless and/or ignored were not going to pass up their once in a lifetime opportunity to send a very deliberate message to residents of the Westminster Bubble! The only long-term, credible and sustainable solution to the present stalemate, set in motion by the 2016 plebiscite, is a UK-wide Constitutional Convention, founded on a Citizens’ Assembly platform. The remit of this potential road to National salvation should not be restricted to the relatively narrow topic of Brexit, despite its obvious resonance in these troubled times. Citizens must be the focus of strategies designed to reshape the manner in which the UK governs itself - a subject requiring a more holistic approach and broader terms of reference to encompass, not least; • The potential role of a succinct, formal codified, ie. written down, UK Constitution capable of engaging all citizens, replete with Court to interpret its meaning? • The influence of voting systems on our elected institutions and whether First Past the Post is really past its sell by date in our more nuanced, complex society? • Meaningful and effective dispersal of political power, away from Westminster, perhaps through the prospect of a Federal Britain, constituted from an array of relatively large, robust, semi-autonomous sub-UK entities, rather than the sham versions on offer to much of provincial England right now? • Replacing the House of Lords with an upper chamber [or Senate] accurately representing the constituent Regions and Nations of the United Kingdom? • An adult conversation about the identity and role of the UK's head of state? • and many others issues of profound constitutional import? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant on-line resources www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/constitutions-and-constitution-making/designing-constitutional-convention citizensassembly.co.uk unlockdemocracy.org/written-constitution www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/electoral-reform federalunion.org.uk/uk news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883944.stm

The lack of proportional representation seems to me a far bigger issue than the absence of a written constitution

Very interesting but the background music is horrendous.

Turn off music

0:15 The Problems with BREXIT has got nothing to do with our Constitution. It is the badly written STATUTES that has exposed the weaknesses of PARLIAMENT & GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION.

I like the way he wears the same jumper in lots of different places

As with most things, the solution begins with 'not starting from here'. :/ While Parties have total control, it would be disastrous to hand over more power to any government, and, while Parties are allowed to control Parliament itself, there really is no difference between Government and Parliament, so giving more power to Parliament gets us nowhere until the Party stranglehold on Democracy is removed. :/ Same goes for the US, where George Washington perfectly warned about the situation we are now in, in his retiring address letter. Washington warned, that if parties were allowed into the system, the end result would be a tyrant seizing power with the aid of foreign competitor states. He got it exactly right.

The Netherlands has a written constitution (although judges cannot rule on it). Because of Brexit, my son an I had a discussion on where the sovereignty of the Dutch people lie. After hours of searching, we have not found it. It hovers somewhere between the Dutch people, the Dutch King, the Dutch government, Dutch parliament and the EU. I am all in favor of a written constitution, but really, some things are better to leave unwritten. The only thing that was clear, was that the EU does not have sovereignty. It lends the member states' sovereignty for as long as the member states allow it. That is why I am opposed to European Parliamentary elections. That does not fit the concept of the EU. Although generally I am very pro EU.

The U.S. Constitution, founded on a robust corpus of English precedent and common law, is operating well. It is, in fact, the most ancient of all written constitutions. Some 230 years on, it still provides strong and clear rules and limitations on government authority. Contrary to the learned Justice’s opinion, it is not malfunctioning. Quite the opposite. Society in general is more rancorous, but that’s not the issue (nor the prerogative of either the U.S. or English constitutions). Rather, the question is whether they provide clear, stable and constituent results and governance that appropriately balance the political and exercise of power against the individual and the rights of the individual. The U.S. Constitution is doing precisely that. At this juncture, the tottering mass of the unwritten English Constitution is not.

Leave or remain the damage done by Brexit will affect our politics for years to come. I believe it is time we need a written constitution.

England is only allowed to leave because the EU law has an option to leave, not because it is sovereign.

The whole system needs to be completely rethought - which doesn't just mean fixing a few people's dictates into a new constitution - a nightmare scenario! - but demands a genuine questioning about sane and healthy ways forward - plenty of which could be found if it was decided that enough is enough with the current way of things - and serious, truth-seeking, unbiassed questions were asked - with an openness to finding new answers.

Yes, definitely! We need a Written Constitution, a Bill of Rights written into International Law that cannot be picked at by right wing and other governments, an elected Upper House to replace the Lords and proper PR voting, not AV, which is not proportional.

Great videos channel 4. Keep them coming

Thanks for this item, both clarifies and raises interesting questions.

Imagine trying to agree on a written constitution today. Stupid idea.

Of course it needs a written constitution instead of a series of archaic conventions that can be widely interpreted. Add to that the repeal of the FTPA.

You guys Lost, not once, not twice but every single time.

An advisory referendum is the same as a public opinion poll as a non-legal vote. The biggest problem it that a government does not need an advisory vote to leave or join the EU so we may be coming and going from the EU every time there is a change in government. If the government does want to leave the EU they should have got elected to leave the EU then had a referendum on the deal that would be two legal votes on two legal deals. This is the same as going on holiday one vote on the intention one on the legal deal this is common sense or common law. Make the government work to common law as everyone else has too then there won't be one law for the people and another for the government.

I think there should be more knowledge and understanding about who has the power, what the rules are, and what they mean, but I think there should be more clarity. So for example if there was a referendum they could say there has to be at least 10% majority to make it official. If not it should come down to the people in charge, to come up with what they think is the best thing to do. I also think that looking at some of the documents for laws, they can be at times quite complicated to read and understand. So I think there should be a sort of translation document that explains what it all means. So I think yes there may have to have some change but I think it mostly comes down to clarity. I think there should be more essence of togetherness. It doesnt matter what background a person comes from, we should be trying to help each other and come together to sort the problems out. Instead of having a go at each other we should be saying well what next. How do we move on from this. Yes we might have a say but unless parliament knows what exactly we want how can they do their job properly. If all parliament is remain and yet they are still going on with leave, how could they know what to do next. They put it to the people, they made a choice that goes against what they belief, so instead of having a go, maybe they just need some guidance about what the people want. Why the leavers want to leave.

Fantastic report! Clear understanding and passionate.! More of this please 🙏

I approve of a written Constitution. The following Provisions must also be enshrined into the constitution of the UK: 1. Parliment shall enact no law respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the free excercise thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state oh, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 3. No Soldier shall be quartered in any home without the consent of the owner during a time of Peace, nor during a time of War except in a manner to be prescribed by law. 4.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5. The prime minister is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. 6. The Monarch shall not be exempt from prosecution for violation of laws enacted by Parliament. 7. The Monarch shall have no political power and shall only have ceremonial power as delegated by Parliament.

Why the need for music at this volume? It is extremely annoying.

Hmm. The video incorrectly suggests that once the constitution in written down it basically cannot be changed... The constitution can be always modified, but it is more rigid (e.g. in Czechia 3/5 of all members of the lower house and 3/5 of the present members of the upper house are required to change the constitution). Moreover, courts can still interpret the constitution or sometimes even change it (take the US where multiple courts can interpret the constitution, or again Czechia where we have the Constitutional court for that very reason). I was expecting more from the video...

Thanks for this informative video! I decided to add the graph of Hansard Society Poll "change the system of government" 09:26 vote results in my dissertation BUT even if I searched its website I could not find this original graph. Could you help me to find it and maybe share the link? I need this help very much. I hope you see the message!

with the benefit of hindsight, if constitutional changes are to be approved under supermajority, Brexit would not be pursued in the first place.

_"What do you think?"_ *read; we're lazy, don't torch the comments section.*

What's this "BREXIT" thing going on? It hasn't in anyway happened yet and the UK has no Constitution as it is not codified.

Britain needs a better electoral system more than it needs a constitution. Mixed Member Proportional Representation is a better system, proven for many years in Germany and New Zealand.

I don't know what the answer is. The US are hung up on their constitution. And sometimes a simple majority in a referendum is enough. What the error was with Brexit was the government/parliament being blinded by the idea of it then believing it has no choice but to implement it. Then the people being told - and repeating it - that the referendum was an act of democracy when it wasn't at all. But to have a written constitution...wouldn't that be tying politicians hands behind their backs and being unable to move?

Somebody any Idea what the Name of the Backgroundtracks are? Beautiful musicchoice.

Just adopt a written constitution. No need to complicate things.

Well done and very helpful in understanding the complexities.

1:15 Sorry Channel 4 yet again it is often what is not being said than what is...that is most important The Magna Carta 1215 by the infamous King John -though the foundation of the story pails in comparison -its future historical developments of Magna Cartas -is the jewel in the crown or thorns in the side of those who seek supremacy. The Magna Carta 1215 which you speak of has no baring in Common Law standing, having been force upon King John by his Barons under duress and is therefore Null n Void. When such Magna Carta is spoken of, it can only be referred to the MAGNA CARTA 1215 and must also be said for clarity that it was later codified into the STATUTES OF PARLIAMENT of which is an entirely different jurisdiction and meaning. Furthermore much of it has been repealed over the years by PARLIAMENT. Hence you can be misled to think that the Magna Carta story ends there; depending on who who talk to. I ask you what happens when someone comes out of a long coma? Well BREXIT has somewhat awaken Common Law with Boris Johnson saga. However with all comas, requires many adjustments. To Fully Leave the EUROPEAN UNION PROJECT is to also fully return to Common Law. There is no if or but about it. But currently that is not what is happening. Currently Common Law is half asleep and half awake.

what sup with the staple, pens and scissor on her desk. is this night court? @3:53

Education. Education . Education.. the majority doesn't know our Constitution.

Frickin House of Lords curtains

He is wrong to claim that Magna Carta gave rights to everyone. The definition of the term 'free man' used in the Magna Carta is actually quite restrictive. The vast majority were peasants, and they were not 'free men'. They were effectively the property of the Lords and Barons etc. As for the Constitution, a written one creates as many new problems as it solves.

All the law and the government needs to change

We definitely need a written constitution! It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a good start!

Whats wrong with channel 4 news? Are they all hearing impaired?

we(as teens) used to complain that the EU actually follows British Law. British Law was EU Law, not the other way around. like the Rammstein song, replace America with UK. if i could tell naive past me, the British actually despised the EU at the time and wanted to GTFO. i mean it was pretty clear from the way the UK representatives talked to the other EU members, but that just reinforced the idea that we are all living in the UK at that time.

he didnt say anything about van Gend en Loos im disappointed

3:32 The problem we have with People's Sovereignty is trust. We trust PARLIAMENT ON A FIVE YEAR BASIS to act as proxy in our Sovereign best interest. But for many centuries now we see our best interest ignored for special interest. Five years is too long to wait to remove PARLIAMENT when it goes off the reservation and betray us. we need many things to be changed with the current proxy arrangement. the abuse has reached a record high blatancy.

There should be a written constitution that rules out referenda for almost all issues.

In South Africa we have an excellent constitution. It is based on deep human values..which is essential. the American one is based on superficial rights..thats not the same thing. Britains is too open to interpretation..that added to the way that MPs are elected..same as America leaves it too open to abuse and is NOT democratic in essence. This is already part of the problem. Watching the British Parliament at work is excruciating..a bun fight all the time. The opposition has no power, except to shout, and occasionally vote. Our opposition MPs do have power and serve to balance the excesses of the ruling party. Without our constitution we would be toast. In essence it is simple enough for everyone to understand. It can be changed but only with a 2/3 majority in parliament. All new laws are tested against the constitution which gives us the comfort that human values cannot be trampled on. For me, Brexit has trampled on people who live and work in the UK because there are no human checks and balances that a constitution brings. The same goes for how employees and poor people are dealt with...but thats a longer story...but its about humanity protected by a constitution.

Write an advosaray constitution that isn't a constitution.

Im surprised with UK not having a written constitution. We in the Philippines, south east asia, non politicians, ordinary citizens debate on our "new laws" formulated to be passed by our politicians, if those new law only favors the rich & powerful. Because once a new law has been passed, approved and signed by the president, we cant stop that law to be implemented.

All Cameron had to do was make the Referendum binding, but, no: he couldn't be bothered.

No.

Is the guy in yellow Carlos Maza?

Interesting. Thank you

I want to thank your constitution for delivering Arlene foster and the DUP, ultimately creating a united Ireland.

no party should be aloud to put someone in place as pm. without a peoples vote not a select few

That was really good!

2:28 ok some of it is correct but yet again it is what not being said that is most important. Then again I might have been a little hasty at calling him a poor researcher. maybe it is down to the editing of CHANNEL 4.

YES it does

Great stuff, thank you.

Everyone knows Britain will never leave Europe. Politicians are smart, they know the consequences but ordinary citizens absolutely they can not understand it. In modern time all countries need each other whether its security, economy and other aspects. We don't live in 18th century!

They had that question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, last night...

What’s the background music?

Referendums should always be used the people should always vote on new laws, As we are the majority of the Population

The guy's argument around 7:07 makes no sense. You could force it to be reviewed regularly. All you'd need to do is insert a clause saying something like, 'Every third year a Constitutional Convention shall be held, where any proposed amendments to this document can be made, considered, accepted or rejected, as provided for by an Act of Parliament.' It could work like the Irish Citizens' Assembly. Although there might be some merit in exanding its membership from 100 to 150-200, I think it is really good start for discussing such fundemental issues.

What constitution? No written one means anything goes!

In the polls did you ask the people what they knew about the constitution? It’s like asking people if they want to be part of the EU when they know little or anything about it. Who would do that?

If it's not a written legal document it does not exist.

Of course u need

referendum -2/3 majority

why are people like him even allowed in public office, is it the money?

The referendum question needs pinning down in a written code which would require 60% of MPs to recommend and a 60% majority vote of the entire electorate in any resulting referendum.. If a written constitution should be recommended it would therefore need 60% vote of the entire electorate in favour in a referendum. (this would mean compulsory voting and registration, and maybe votes at 16). In any case, the Royal Prerogative should be abolished, as should an unelected House of Lords. Otherwise the unwritten flexible nature of the constitution should remain.

Unwritten constitution is a funny way of saying no constitution.

Dont use referendums in the future, canada learned that one the hard way.

Don't mean to be a stickler, but my teacher training makes it hard to resist: the plural of the word 'referendum' is 'referenda', in the same way that the plurar of 'stadium' is 'stadia' and so on. This is a latin neuter word, the plural of which is formed by applying the suffix -a, whereas masculine words like 'octopus' form theirs with the suffix -i (octopi ). ;-)

"NOT LEGALLY BINDING" DROPXIT. No law changes needed.Just the law applied instead of "the will of the people"repeated.

All points of view are tragic for society.

It's referenda! We don't say bacteriums or datums.

oh he was against the ban on popers wonder why?

The UK needs to become a republic with a constitution! It is does not, it is fucked.

I thought the UK had constitution

Julian Assange: "Hello, Embassy of Rwanda?"

Am American with written constitution and we have constitutional crises all tge time. There is no written document free of interpretation and in America our Supreme Court slips and slids as its wants arguing "original intent." All things considered your patchwork works better (in relative terms). Be careful what you wish for!!!

I don’t think the form is the issue that caused the Brexit debacle. It is certain you should write it down so everyone can see it in-one place but no the actual referendum was the issue. First it was non-binding and was treated like it was binding. Second, the lies made understanding what to vote difficult (as I was hearing). Third, it had no actionable plan attached. Lastly you made it majority rules. That last one was maybe the worst. You did go into the EU with a proper 65% thus gaining rights and citizenship. But you left with 51.X%. So you had a swing of about 15% and you wonder why it all went pear shaped. You should well have borrowed a page from us this time. Make it a super majority or make it so it must carry in each kingdom of the UK. Either of these things keeps the U in UK and forces the side that wants to make the change to have solid reasoning that gets most everyone on board and that is what a 66% vote does. But you can’t do that with your “flexible” constitutional system? Of course you could - you have the tools. Just next time be careful to keep United. And don’t let this bring you down. - with my prayers for your success as an ugly American :)

The point of a written constitution is that it provides stability and certainty for citizens against untrustworthy politicians and the state. If you still want to change it, you should be able to, but with a proper majority, like 66% and a big quotum of voters to make sure the people are sufficiently on the same page. Same with referenda. Simple majorities can only provide division in the country, as the brexit referendum shows. However, leaving the EU or for example becoming a republic and doing away with the queen are issues that should be dealt with by referendum. These things should not be left to opportunistic party politics of the day, which the people can reverse at any normal election. The written constitution should provide these voting rules, and be able to protect itself in the same manner.

Too much complexity makes it open to abuse and obfuscation. E.g the monarch has more power than they'd have us believe. Needs simplifying.

If the general public had been given ALL the information they needed on which to base their decision to leave or stay, the voting may have been very different. Equally if we were like Australia and everyone had to vote by law, then all those who abstained from voting in the Referendum would have had to make a decision and vote. I believe the whole governing system needs as much of an overhaul now as it did when the Magna Carta was first written.

Very interesting, but essentially irrelevant if we stay in the EU. The commentator seemed rather horrified that the US.Supreme court could overturn any law, but since the 1990s, our laws can similarity be overridden by the ECJ. With the UK parliament increasingly becoming marginalized in its role as a “rubber stamp” for eu directives, why waste time formalizing our constitution? It will simply be ignored by the superior legal order of the EU.

Yes, indeed, it is time for a "radical change".

Yes we do also a 2nd amendment & bare arms against criminal goveenment and parliament

Al Pike's really funny today.

Anything that takes away the will and rights of The People Should Not Have Overriding Authority!

The education system should be teaching youngsters about the country they will soon contribute to, it's constitutional, legal and financial system and how it's government interacts with the world. It was stupidity to give the referendum to us without educating us on what we were voting for, advisory or not.

Very good introduction to the British constitution. My personal opinion is to write things down otherwise it’s open to misinterpretation and misuse, as we’re witnessing that in the case of Brexit.

UK needed a written constitution the moment #BorisTheLiar became the Prime Minister!

I don't think common and statute law should have been described as part of our constitution. A constitution is that body of law which governs the governors. It can do so only by being more deeply entrenched than ordinary law. (If it wasn't, governments could overturn it in their own interests at any time.) If the measures which put the UK under the sway of EU law , and those that would take us out of it, had been recognised to be constitutional amendments in a written constitution, they would all have required super-majorities to pass, and we would not be in this mess. This is what happens when you try to pass constitutional amendments on simple majorities. Either in the legislature, or by plebiscite.

There are just 5 countries without a written constitution, the UK, Canada, NZ, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. What was called a "Referendum" was, in fact, a Plebiscite the latter is an advice to the parliament by the people and the former should be a legislative Bill passed by the people.