Constitutions and all that 

This is a great question if you enjoy starting arguments and then watching people's complexions evolve from a rosy glow to something approaching an apoplectic shade of mauve.  So perhaps we should steer clear of this minefield and ask instead whether a constitution needs to be written and if it needs to be overt. 

Our opinion here is not important; we simply point out out that it is a divisive subject.  One thing is clear; we do not have anything that compares with the United States of America (and we know very well that there is a sizeable rabbit hole on that topic) which was drafted in an attempt to avoid such pitfalls as "no taxation without representation", and to ensure that the American people would not suffer the oppression that some of the founding fathers experienced in the old world. 

There is a powerful case that our constitution is an amalgamation of Acts of Parliament, Decrees and Judgements.   The closest we have to a written constitution is contained within Magna Carta 1215 (which, despite being an indefinite contract between the monarch and the people, cannot be found on the parliamentary website), The Observance of Due Process of Law 1368, the various 1688 Acts (William & Mary, Coronation Oath and the Bill of Rights) as well as the Act of Settlement 1700.    

It is undoubtedly the case that we have been here before.  James II was often described as a tyrant.  He converted to the  Roman Catholic faith having spent time in France where he served in their army, and during his short reign created many divisions by promoting the catholic faith in a time when Protestant sentiment was very much in the ascendancy.  So the political class of his day invited William of Orange (who was married to James' daughter) to bring his army to England, sure in their belief that confronted with an invading army, the king would not be able to resist. Indeed, James’ army deserted, and he abandoned the throne, living out the remaining years of his life in France. 

In offering the now-vacant throne to William and Mary, the political classes were not so foolish to risk a repetition of monarchical tyranny, and so the throne was accepted on the basis that the new king and queen agree to the Declaration of Rights as it was then (1688). 

What became the Bill of Rights restrained the monarch, insomuch as it allowed the monarch to form a government, but that government would be required to seek parliamentary approval for its actions. This is the founding constitutional document that forms the basis of how we are governed to this very day. 

The question, then, is: did our forebears, in closing out one avenue of tyranny (monarchy), open up the possibility of another - a parliamentary tyranny? 

The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter. It declares that the parties to the agreement (the king and queen, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons) cannot do anything that is to the prejudice of the people. In short, the crown, the government and parliament are constitutionally constrained from doing anything that would harm the people. 

Knowing the power of the document, our forefathers also understood how likely it would be that later generations of tyrants would likely wish to do away with the most powerful tool that is in the service of individual liberty. It was why the document itself states that it cannot be altered or amended in any manner. 

The 1700 Act of Settlement stated very clearly, when referring to the Bill of Rights, that the Bill is for ever. It is why, when you go to the government’s legislation website and search under 1688, the Bill is still to be found live on the statute book today. 

As the founding constitutional document of our current governance arrangements, it cannot be undone by the very institutions that it seeks to restrain. Clearly, a population correctly schooled in their constitutional history would present a solid, impenetrable defence against overreach, whether governmental or parliamentarian, by those who claim mastery. 

What is clear is that our forebears had lived experience of tyranny, and that experience gave them the wherewithal to protect future generations from repeating that experience. 

However, that knowledge and the tools to resist have suffered from what might be described as constitutional entropy; in brief, we forgot. Much like the Renaissance was the rediscovery of prior knowledge, today we have to relearn the basis upon which we agree to be governed, and be properly armed with the Bill of Rights. 

The knowledge that neither your government nor parliament is permitted to cause you harm is the most powerful weapon we can use, as it would undo much that they have done. How much legislation would stand up to scrutiny by a populace armed with an understanding of their constitutional rights? Likely little, if any of the more recent disgraceful bills passed as legislation were to answer the question of harm. 

Our past generations were not foolish people. In the Bill of Rights, they recognised the power of what they had achieved; likely why the bloodless coup of William & Mary came to be called the Glorious Revolution. 

Together with the Act of Settlement 1700, it placed those who seek to govern under an obligation to cause no harm; it is our obligation to see that they are held to their agreement.

The great advantage the United States founding fathers had when drafting their constitution more than 80 years after the Act of Settlement was that of hindsight.  That the people of the United States were quickly betrayed by their leaders is another matter altogether!