Not rigid, but highly viscous

I believe that the constitution should be pretty basic, setting out principles and parameters but not going into intricate detail. It should then be fairly resistant to change. However, it is inevitable that amendments will be required over time, if only to update the language as the meaning of words evolves. I suggest that a simple majority of MPs (of all MPs, not just those who take part in the division) should be able to propose a constitutional amendment; but that the threshold for agreeing that amendment should be set very high: perhaps two thirds of the electorate in a popular referendum.

Debra Storr Apr 5, 2015

One thought on this : we are discussing a UK constitution.  

But some(most?) suggestions refer to federal structures.  One complication is amendments that MAY impact other tiers.  I'd suggest the addition control of that any tier that MAY be impacted would need to agree - probably by a super-majority of the relevant tiers legislature.  

Titus Alexander Apr 8, 2015

In principle I agree, but a two thirds majority threshold in a referendum is too high. It also depends on the nature of the amendment. It is quite possible that a constitution that it will have unintended consequences that can be fixed through small technical changes. Even a 60%majority of those voting could be hard to achieve. The process for amendment needs more work.

Charles Williams Apr 10, 2015

I would be happy to set the approval criterion as a simple majority of all electors registered to vote.

Noita Sadler Apr 12, 2015

Hi Charles, 

Would you be happy to change the two thirds majority threshold to something lower? 

Users tagged:

Charles Williams Apr 12, 2015

Yes: I commented above that in my view a simple majority of all registered electors would be sufficiently demanding in practice.

Daniel Regan Apr 16, 2015

Hi Charles,


Would you be able to format this idea so that it takes the form of a proposal or draft for the constitution?


Users tagged: