The UK's Constitution Explained - TLDR Explains
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
The Cabinet Manual - tinyurl.com/y6sjhry7
Constitutions are foundational documents which set out how most countries are run. They are held as sacred and individual sentences studied for their true meaning. However, the UK and a handful of other countries avoid all of that by having an unwritten, uncodified constitution. In this video, we discuss the four different areas that the UK constitution draws from and how this kind of unwritten constitution works in reality.
Donate to TLDR: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Check out our Merch: teespring.com/stores/tldr
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by one person with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
Definitely more of these. Educating the British Publish (and the world) about the complexities of local politics is important and I am super glad that someone out there is able to put it in an easy to understand format. Thank you TLDR
James Hyde *Public
Kerberos pubelisch
@@jurgenforster8314 pubelike
Best not to put all your eggs in one basket anyway.
lol this person is talking utter bull, this is so hard for joe public to understand, he is talking jibberish, we have an english constitution, we have had it since 1688/9 and we will always have it, it is for all time, oh and the supreme court is illegal under english law, the illegal supreme court was something that tony blair brought in to control the english
To be fair, NZ didn't have official names for it's islands until about 10 years ago. We tend to just forget to get around to things...
Simon Buchan so what are the official island names?
@@snyparaustralis540 North Island and South Island. Although if you go back far enough the South Island was called Middle Island, and Stewart Island was the South Island.
@@kdhlkjhdlk aren't we original?
kdhlkjhdlk fair enough... “Keep It Simple, Stupid” in action!
Isabella Egan we Aussies aren’t much better... Western Australian, South Australia, the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory....
@@snyparaustralis540
As well as North Island and South Island, they are also officially called Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waipounamu. Both pairs of names are correct and official, although North and South are in more common use.
sure. more of these. I am sure you will cover Brexit when something new happens
Boris will be gone by July , then we leave
Nothing will happen till a couple of years pass.
@@auntiemandy5638 LMAO I didn't see the date and thought you meant THIS July, 2021
@@3jacen na he went last year during his first hospital visit for covid , he had a 3am visit from white hats , only look a likes and holograms since
@@auntiemandy5638 But most politicians are empty vessels anyways, he is certainly more mentally present than brain dead Joe Biden
You explained this topic a lot more clearly then my politics teacher
“If you can’t explain something to a child you don’t understand it yourself” Albert Einstein
Maybe look for a new teacher lol
@@jimmy2k4o That's because... We don't actually listen to our teachers. Had they played this video in your class, something deep from within would reject it.
@@Highvibethings yeah, we almost rebel against our teachers.
It’s sad that we get school at an age where we don’t appreciate it. It’s not until we’re older we discover that we like learning about stuff and when our full time job was to learn about different subjects all day, we didn’t appreciate it.
Also I think our brains are more equipped to learn once we’re a bit older. In the sense it comes more naturally and it’s enjoyable.
Learning about Henry VIII as age 13 was boring and hard, but leaning about him at 28 it’s interesting and enjoyable……and easy.
Afterall it’s easy to learn things you find interesting, infact it’s almost impossible to not learn stuff when you’re interested.
I wish you’d give former leaders their haircuts like you do for May, Corbyn, and Farage.
You've shown some interesting topics at the beginning.
I hope we get to see more of them get their own videos, I think they'd be great.
Would love to see a video on devolution for each country explaining the difference between them. And if there is any devolution in England at all. Keep up the good work, your videos are great!
If and when will we get an English Parliament since this would solve the West Lothian Question
We have local government Councillors. Now the Tories have brought in regional mayors with powers to initiate projects as of 2017. @hublanderuk that would make no sense as the English Parliament would just be our MPs without Scotland, Wales, NI so essentially the same decision makers without any voice for the other countries on decisions which affect them. A bit like Brexit and losing our voice as part of the EU ie. we lose our elected MEPs and Ministers roles in the Commission if we leave...
Excellent video - I knew some of this, but not all and you present it very succinctly. One slight correction I would offer is that a written constitution is no barrier to modernisation in countries which offer easy access to public plebiscites or referendums. In ireland we are shortly to have the 42nd referendum vote (since independence) on changing our written Constitution. I'm 60 years old and I estimate that I have voted in at least 30 referendums since 1983.
Dermot Gildea Amending a written constitution through referenda offers great clarity and precision. Amending an uncodified constitution . . . doesn’t, as every other TLDR video seems to prove. If the question you’re voting on is “Shall Article 5, Section 3, Paragraph 2, Line J be amended to read ‘Blah blah blah blah blah,’” the only impediment to people understanding what they’re voting on is the density and inaccessibility of the legal language. Even the worst examples of this are crystal clear compared with the ambiguities inherent in asking a yes-or-no question about a big and complex issue.
@@aperson22222 Good point. It can be daunting to voters when presented with the sort of legalese paragraph you mentioned, but in Ireland we generally have a lengthy debate about what the change means before the vote. Also, when the change is significant (e.g. the 2018 Abortion referendum), the Govt is usually obliged to publish indicative legislation or commit publicly to the the key parameters of laws they will propose to enact if the Constitution is amended. One other point worth mentioning - one of the main powers of our President is that he/she can refer any legislation passed by the Dáil (Parliament) to the Supreme Court for a judgement on its constitutionality.
Dermot Gildea Yes, things like that certainly make the amendment process more user-friendly. Everything but the president’s sending new laws to the court (which is interesting; saves the court from having to wait for a lawsuit to wind its way through the appeals process) sound a lot like uncodified conventions to me. Even the most explicitly written constitution will have its share of those, I suppose.
yep. This is a debatable point. The Irish rule allows the passage of an amendment without a super majority. So unlike in the USA the irish Parliament can pass a change in the same way as an ordinary statute, the voters can refuse to approve it in the subsequent referendum. Amending the constitutional document is simple and quick. So long as there is a majority to do so among the voters.
Keith Cross Slight correction Keith - the Irish parliament cannot enact new legislation until the Constitutional Amendment has been passed - and yes, a simple majority is sufficient for that. But voters usually want some indication of the intended legislation so Govts usually publish an outline or commit to specific parameters. E.g when Divorce was finally legalised in 1995 it was only approved by 50.28% so just barely passed. That Constitutional Amendment hard wired a 5 year waiting period for divorce into the Constitution - hence the legislation created to enact Divorce had to include the 5 year period. We have another referendum on Divorce on May 24th in which the proposed changes are - no fixed waiting period - instead the period to be set by legislation & full recognition of foreign divorces. The Govt has published an outline bill proposing to enact 2 year waiting period if the amendment is passed. So if passed, the Constitution will now allow future Govts to propose even more liberal time periods in revised legislation.
nice to see you guys broadening your scope, good video, keep it up
4:17 So nice to hear that Sir Humphrey's rules finally got written down.
You're either open, or you're the government.
More of this. Like, *more*. The Anglophile in me is awestruck by both all this new neatly gathered information and the great work you guys are doing! Kudos and here's to many more videos like this!
Please continue to make these videos, they are very interesting and well made!
I seem to recall that the Canadian constitution is roughly half written, half uncodified.
I thought most of it was written. Was just going to comment that Canada has had a Constitution since at least 1982.
@@DavidChipman you are right. The Constitution of Canada includes the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982. The British North America Act, 1867, codified many constitutional rules for Canada, but major changes to the Constitution could only be made by the United Kingdom Parliament. In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of Canada's Constitution along with a set of procedures allowing the Constitution to be amended in Canada. So TLDR is simply wrong. Canada does have a codified constitution
There is one convention. Although the Queen has executive power as the head of state, it can be exercised solely on advice by Ministers of the Crown ie the cabinet and prime minister
Canada has a constitution and it is in great part written. Especially it has a Charter of Rights. Because of Quebec and the Civil law influence saying Canada is is just a follow up of UK is over simplifying and Brit centrist... Also consider the influence of our neighbours to the South with a constitution and politics that also influence us greatly!
@@ProfessorJohnB There are dozens of conventions of varying degree in Canada. You are correct in that one of the key ones is that the Executive acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Many of our conventions are similar to those of the United Kingdom (the entire position of Prime Minister, for example, is through convention), while others have deviated from the UK over the last 150 years (for example, because Brexit was "the" key platform piece of the Tories, if May's deal had been defeated by the House in Canada it would have almost certainly triggered an election, because in Canada it would have been considered a confidence motion).
1:32 the reason for Israel's uncodified constitution is the same as for NZ and Canada's.
It's really stupid reason. India was also a former colony of the UK but we have a codified constitution.
shame it doesn't mean much anyway!
Love your work - very easy to follow. This was a good addition to your body of work. Please keep them coming.
More of these, please! Thanks for sharing!
I'm an immigrant, and this was useful for me as someone who didn't learn British civics in school. I'd love further explanations of the mechanics of British government to get me up to speed.
Non Immigrant here, what is British Civics, I never had such teaching at school.
I'm a first year law student, and this explained more to me than my first 2 weeks of lectures - so thank you!
Really well constructed and articulated content. Thank you for your work
Brilliant video. I really didn't know much about this at all and it was very clearly and concisely explained.
5:33
That isn't how a tank's cannon's recoil works.
Shane Rooney not every channel can be beige.
Well, most brits don't even know how a slingshot works, so...
It's an old model tank.
Or the secret bèta test of the new model.
Shane Rooney I don’t care it looks pretty cool!
@@HawkPlatinum eh? what stereotype is that playing off of? Is it a joke about not allowing guns? Cause, if you think about it, not having guns would actually force us to be very well versed in the mechanics of a sling shot. I just realized as well that the English are famous for longbows, a very sling shot like weapon.
Thanks could of really used this video before yesterday since I wrote a essay question on the UK Consititution for my Uni 1st year Public Law exam 🤣
Amazing video. Has a huge UK fan from a foreign country, these videos are really good!
please please pleaseeee do more of these - desperately trying to pass my politics a level in 2 weeks and these vids are really helping!
You spelt Israel wrong
Have you not heard of the People's Republic of Isreal? Isreal is real.
Brian Chia Alas, the spelling error is real.
Yes.
ISit4REAL? LOL
They wanted to make sure they're real.
I'm all for videos like these! I'd hate to see this channel fade away once brexit is over (even if that's a long ways away). Please, don't be afraid to branch out more!
Still one of my favorite videos you folks have ever made.
Really enjoyed this one, not got any suggestions for now but I appreciated the explanation
Congrats on 250k subs!
EU law was known to supersede national law even before the UK joined the EU in 1973. This was settled in the case of Costa v ENEL (The Italian national electric company) in 1964.
also it is not common Law as understood in England but arises from the effect of statute. It forms part of the constitution by virtue of the European communities act 1973. unless or until the UK leaves the EU.
The EU didn't exist until the early 90's when the Maastricht treaty was signed.
@@jalbo9975 It existed in a different name (The European economic communities or EEC), but the main structure of EU law was already set and case laws from that time are still a part of EU law. The EU gained more authority over the years in comparison to the EEC with Maastricht being an important milestone.
@Lanie Monroe didn't the UK take part in the creation of the EU?
@@amirsrish
I love all of TLDRs content, particularly Brexit related videos. Moreover, videos such as this that explain political systems in the Uk and America are immensely useful to myself as I’m studying Politics and Government, as well as that they’re really interesting. In short just keep doing what you’re doing and please do produce more videos explaining systems of government.
That was great. More of these please.
3:56 Walter Bagehot's surname is pronounced ['badget] and not "bag-hot" 🤗
Could you please please make t-shirts and hoodies with all the EU countries wearing shoes??
Very useful and informative video, thank you!
Great video, keep 'em coming
Do a video on Sinn Féin abstentionism!
The problem with saying "Checks and Balances" is that UK simply doesn't have that many. It is more uncomfortable to call it luck, but that and vigilant individuals who have safeguarded the UK. Had an elected government made a concerted effort of Tyranny it would have been able to have done so legally.
In some cases, it likely would have been easier for a tyrant to rise in the UK's system than the systems of many of the nations that fell to fascism before the second world war.
Rarely is a solidified constitution a detriment to a nation, usually the worst constitutions are those that can be changed at a moments notice making them tools of the majority party or those Documents which are unofficial to begin with.
Since Stonehenge times it has been proven time after time British politics can't function without the help of their neighbours. Without them the UK would have been a dictatorship for centuries.
A written constitution is only a piece of paper. People with moral courage are what stop tyrannies. There are arguments for and against having one. It is a complex matter and admits of no simple answer. Extreme political instability causes them to break down.
Love that ur covering more stuff
Wish u would do more videos on other nations
Amazing !! Keep up the good work.
I would like to know more about the formation of the main Dinasty of Monarchs
18th September 2019: We don’t have an unelected judiciary making important constitution or political decisions.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, Canada has had a codified constitution since 1982...?
pixlplague You and TLDR are both partially right. Most political scientists seem to be of the opinion that Canada has a partially codified constitution with large parts still uncodified and based on the UK constitution like case law, the monarchy, the role of the prime minister etc. The provinces are a bit more clear in that none of them but one have codified constitutions.
Xerxes Au Considering that most issues between Quebec and Canada have been regarding the repatriation of the constitution of 1982 and the consequences of that constitution (mostly charter of rights and freedom) on provincial and linguistic rights: saying Canada is like the UK is very misleading. In term of law and constitution: Canada lives with the exemple of it’s US neighbour (charter of rights and freedom follows on the example of the bills of rights). Also consider that each provinces have their own parlement and in the case of Quebec use civil law (French tradition) instead of just common law. So as impressed I am with TLDR News: putting Canada among the 5 countries with large non codified constitution is very confusing...
@@ericmarchand1436 I kinda see where Xeres is going and it does make sense, but yeah I'm with you on the potential misrepresentation.
@@ericmarchand1436 Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Great teaching so yet another reason to watch this channel
Really useful thank you. Can you do more like these? An updated version would be great!
6:46
Actually the UK kind of does in the form of the first past the post system...
I like our uncodified constitution. Codified constitutions risk becoming outdated and not adapting quickly enough to new needs. The only major improvement I could suggest for the video (besides just a couple of spelling errors) would be to flesh out the role of the monarchy, particularly as sovereignty is vested in the Queen-in-Parliament (meaning both institutions need to agree for a law to pass).
Jack Tanton Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually use any of the powers she has, as our head of state she is technically as powerful as any Parliamentary President.
I find this to be a lovely addition to your ordinary videos; keep them coming - I think they'll be succesful.
I have a British Politics Final today and this certainly helps. Thanks for the video!
I'm gonna be honest: not having your shit written down is probably a bad idea, as the US is learning with a lot of it's implicit traditions recently.
Can you explain how the EU MEP elections work? Can their be a coalition to have the most votes after the voted have been counted?
Please do more of these! They're really informative and digestible. Having done law at A level I know I myself am eager to learn more about how my country actually functions politically
Well done, you nailed this!
Actually a tyrannical government could be dissolved by the Queen. So there is that check.
Are you sure about that? I haven't seen the Queen take any action that wasn't based on the advice of her PM.
@@nautilusshell7837 as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@marth8000 I think if you look at what's happened over the last couple of hundred years, there have been few, if any, examples of the sovereign acting without the approval of the government. It seems to be a convention.
BTW, what's a que? A line of people?
Super Kami wrote:
SuperKami
14 minutes ago
@Nautilus Shell as if the video wasn't telling enough, there are no written rules about this stuff in the UK, it's all Hypotheticals. the Queen could start a que, and the army & many other citizens would likely join her. that knowledge alone is enough to act as a check and balance on the government, (it also works vice versa with parliament)
@@nautilusshell7837 Coup* (A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (/pʊtʃ/), a golpe, or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.) but anyway w/e.
The Queen hasn't had to act in the interest of the realm or for her own well being against the government because she's had no need to do so, The government and the monarch equally respect one another. so neither have most monarchs in a long time had to step into politics, but that doesn't mean that that can't change. but yeah i can understand people seeing that as setting a precedent, but again it's all hypothetical's and what-if's.
@@marth8000 So, you're suggesting that the queen will be involved in an illegal etc seizure of power. Somehow, I don't think so. The Queen is more likely to do a knickerless can-can along Piccadilly than get involved in anything of the sort.
Wut? Canada does too have a written constitution. We took it off you lot in the 80's.
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Think of it this way: you're both right. Canada has both a written and unwritten constitution, according to the very written constitution you cite.
Continuously quality content. Keep up the excellent work, I’ll try to donate to the Patreon when I can afford to do so!
Thank you for this video, ive just started constitutional and administratitive law at university and videos like this i will always be grateful for
When I was serving in the German military, we all received a small booklet with our constitution so we all knew what we are defending and what restricts our use of military power.
What do British soldiers get? A shelf full of books? Ticket to the library?
A picture of the queen and the lyrics to "Rule Brittania"?
British military officers, in staff school, get courses on "Aid to the Civil Power" and "Military Ethics." These issues are well discussed.
The UK also doesn't have a real press freedom. And you could see the consquences of this when authorities moved against the Guardian during the Snowden leaks... But on the other hand the UK is the country with the most surveillance.
You didn't mention other treaties that prevent the UK going full crazy, like the European Convention on Human Rights and other EU law.
That, "the UK is the country with the most surveillance" is outdated. We've been overtaken by China (massively) and other countries use much more sophisticated surveillance cameras than we do. We are now behind UAE, Singapore, Japan and The US. OK so being 6th isn't great but you should at least get our facts right.
Politicians have acknowledged freedom of the press, and it has been written into the constitution in the UK. This is why the UK came in 5th place in the world for freedom, however the UK still stands at 40th position for human rights.
This was really interesting, thanks!
More of these please.
Good video, but 1:29, you misspelled Israel. As an American, I'm keenly aware of the benefits, and drawbacks, of having a written, codified constitution. Well, really, it's the same feature: constitutional law is incredibly difficult to change, for good or ill.
That actually depends somewhat on the process for amendments. Here in Ireland, we've had eight changes to the constitution in ten years and we're about to have a referendum on another one. Of course, our process for amendments is much simpler than the US (the parliament must approve the proposal and then there's a referendum).
@@kierandouble6414 Absolutely. In the USA, the bar is very, one might argue, impossibly high, at least in the current political climate. Though I also live in California, so I do get some of the 'alter constitution by referrendum', and let me tell you, that isn't always so good either.
Let's see what the Brexit Party would do with all this. They have promised to "change politics forever". Chancellor Farage anyone?
Please there is precedent. Lord Protector.
Farage is an idiot on these things… He even states to people "vote for me and if I win I'll tell you what I'll do." Utter madness!!Then again this is BREXIT.
If they did leave properly without him becoming pm wouldn't that neutralise him as that's his primary objective?
@@Darkwintre The problem is that leaving "properly" doesn't seem to be possible without raising the Irish border or pushing Northern Ireland out of the UK. This is why Parliament is a mess. What people actually voted for is impossible so they are trying to figure out what they can give us that looks a bit like Brexit but that is actually achievable. And each party wants to do it in a way that lays blame at the other parties.
@@lellyparker now imagine if May hadn't interfered how would Davies have handled this?
I doubt it would be the problem they're making it, but deliberately avoiding getting on with it as May's Treaty doesn't resolve this doesn't help!
I liked this video! It's been fascinating learning about the UK's inner workings through the Brexit brouhaha from afar. So here's hoping you do more general-knowledge videos like this one in the future :)
It was interesting and a nice change of pace.
*YOU COULDNT HAVE POSTED THIS BEFORE MY PUBLIC LAW 9AM EXAM TODAY*
either way, loved the vid 😔👊
Deathrow pardon 2 minutes too late.
For future reference, palm trees aren't actually made of wood. They're not really trees.
*6 months later in the Glorious Republic of New Britannica's reeducation camp no 518:
"To think all this could've been prevented if TLDR had been more knowledgeable about biology."
As an A Level Politics teacher actually covering the constitution this is really good, I’m going to use it for my students in the next lesson. Thanks for posting.
Keep doing videos like this
The Canada constitution has been codified since 1982 in the constitution act with the charter of rights and freedoms
Canada has both a written and unwritten Constitution. The written portion consists of the British North America Act of 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act of 1867) and the Constitution Act of 1982, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble of the BNA Act states that Canada is to have a constitution "...similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." - that is, very similar to the video above. Over the past 150 years, the conventions that have developed in both countries have diverged from one another, but the essence of Canada's Constitution remains similar to that of the United Kingdom's.
Do a video on how the Royal family. How much they cost vs how much they generate. 👑🤔😂🤣
Why copy Grey?
Don Wald what? Who is grey.
@@simonhopkins3867 CGP Grey, youtuber.
@@SidheKnight thanks I had seen a couple of his videos but didn't know his name!
@@simonhopkins3867 You're welcome.
That was really interesting. Thank you.
Yes please more of these
Imagine thinking it's bad to have impartial judges appointed by elected officials instead of directly electing judges who bend to whatever flavor of populist thought is trending.
Well if they are appointed directly by elected officials than they can be seen as political spoils and used to entrench a party's ideology in the legal system. I would know that is what has started to become the principle motivation of the Republican Party here in the U.S. Now though, although I would like for the UK to have some form of additional protection for constitutional acts and restrictions on the passage of new ones (say only allowing repeal or new acts in cases where their repeal was called for in the winning parties manifesto) their current system allows for highly indirectly appointed judges to rules on the interpretation of constitutional statute, and for Parliament to change it later if they felt that the judges got it wrong.)
What a mess. Just have a clear written constitution, and regularly update it with some super-majority system.
The Netherlands has a constitution that's been largely the same since 1814, but has seen lots of small updates, the last one in 2017.
*but your videos have been really, very helpful when it comes to my public law exams, so thank u very much for your existence 🥺*
This is one of your most interesting videos.
As an American I found this very informative. I thought the UK was a "constitutional monarchy" and thus had codified constitution.
A bit more on the history of Parliament would be interesting, also what parts of the Magna Carta are still in effect?
I think there are two parts of Magna Carta that still apply but the one I remember is the right for trial by jury of peers.
Very informative and broke down a lot of the wiff-waff into bite sized pieces as always, great video!!!
Interesting I'd like to see more of these
Well technically you have the Royal head of state that can just dissolve any tyrannical Government and they are head of the armed forces so can even take back control by force theoretically for the good of the realm, I'd say that safeguards things.
Yeah but that likely won't happen, as a tyrannical Government will likely have the backing of the military at that point, and as such the military will probably answer to them regardless of what the monarchy wants.
As much as it's nice to think that the Queen would save us from a tyrannical Government she likely wouldn't, the monarchy is just a figure-head that costs a fortune in tax.
I would imagine that, if all else fails, and someone tries to screw *everything* up because it isn't technically against the law, there's always the Queen who can step in and say "Oy, stop that." I can't imagine she *would* except in extreme situations where the bad actor is obviously acting against the best interest of the people.
I think the army is the bigger player against such issues. Actually anyone that wants to make REAL coups, as in, really effective ones, has to win the army to their side. Then they can throw a coup. Otherwise theyd just be attacked themselves.
@@RoScFan Hence the UK military swears an oath to the crown, not the government, for what its worth. Quite right though.
Maybe. The last time a British monarch refused to assent to an act of parliament was 1708. It's likely there'd be renewed interest in republicanism in the UK if a monarch was seen to be frustrating the will an elected parliament.
@@superfluidity There was a lot of speculation that would happen after the UK Parliament just passed a private members bill forbidding a "no deal Brexit." Theresa May and the government opposed the bill, but were outvoted. She could have advised the Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent to kill the bill. But did not.
Since such advice violates constitutional convention, Her Majesty would quite rightly refuse it and give the bill Royal Assent anyway.
@@kevinlove4356 Australia 1975 saw the dismissal of the Federal Cabinet as the Queens Governor refused to accept the advice of the Labour PM. Legal but constitutional? You will have to ask aussies what they think about that.
Great video really helps with revision for my politics exam next week.
This was very informative
Be careful of the assumption that an unelected judiciary making important constitutional decisions is somehow a negative thing given that in many countries where marginalized voices struggle to be heard in Parliament, the unelected judiciary whose independence is guarded from political interference (the very model purported by British Colonial Officials during the decolonisation period) is there only place of representation.
"guarded from political interference"
"Political interference" aka democracy.
@@vallraffs Actually no. Not sure if you appreciate constitutional law where constitutional supremacy replaces parliamentary sovereignty, but the ability of parliament to impact the decisions of the judiciary strike against the notion of the rule of law and is therefore anti-democratic. Not every action a democratically elected political body does is actually democratic. To make such an assertion is a bit reductionist.
@@GlenDivo "Anti-democratic"? Not really. Only in a world where the definition of "democracy" counts rule of law over and seperate from the majoritarian principle of power resting with the people and it's representatives would that be the case. What that describes is just strict legalism, not democracy. An unelected judiciary wielding power from law, independent of any mandate from the people, is antithetical to popular sovereignty and thus anti-democratic.
6:43 America is far worse off by being hamstrung by its ancient constitution & having unelected judicial officials make huge political decisions.
Brilliant work!
That was intesting :) more please!
As a LLB student preparing for my Public Law exams, videos like these definitely help me get a better picture!
Definitely more of these.
Could you do a video on the devolved/local powers in the UK? My mum was just elected to town council and I want to know what the difference between town/county councils and maybe the powers of hollyroot and the Welsh assembly.
Great stuff! Can you do more like this on other aspects of UK government plz?
Thank you, I will use with my Yr12 Gov-Pol A level students to consolidate learning about the sources of the uncodified or unentrenched constitution
I wish this had come out a week ago before my British Politics exam. More of this type of video would be really cool as a resource for students
Rather interesting and helpful
This video is just absolutely superb- please do more like it. I think it's great that you're expanding from just Brexit videos.
I'd love more of these! Maybe a video comparing common law with Roman law? Or maybe showing how uncodified constitutions work in Canada and New Zealand.
Pretty sure NZ has a law on the books that is used to "entrench" certain other laws, making them much harder to repeal. One such law is called something along the lines of 'the Constitution act' or some such and lays out a bunch of other specific laws and documents as making up New Zealand's Constitution... Note that the law used to entrench other laws is not itself entrenched, but getting rid of it, then the entrenched law you want to be rid of is probably harder in practice than just getting rid of the entrenched law directly...
Something like that, last I checked anyway. It's a lot more formal and codified than the video implies, though it is not a single fixed and unchangeable document.
EXCELLENT!
Thank you 👍
I think you may have missed a trick on Canada (we sorta rubbed off a few documents in that nation) but this was great. All you have to do it get a catchy tune with an old jazz singer and you can make this a schoolhouse rock.
Great video .... informative & enlightening..... a well explained insight into the British Constitution & associated conventions, applications & affiliated governances including common & statue law ..... if possible could you please do an exploratory video on the ‘transference of laws, legislative power & authority’ to the UK after Brexit ...... as it stands at this moment in time neither the European Union nor Britain have began formal talks on which laws as to be recognised by either party..... or how long current laws / powers & treaties will remain in place ..... thank you TLDR News ....
Still wrangling over "serious votes, and "deadlines", etc. Both sides have barely scratched the surface in re the practical effects of BREXIT on the UK and the EU. Lots of palaver but very little concrete action since the vote in 2016.
Gary L ...... As the UK & European Union haven’t formally separated the chief negotiator(for the EU) & the President of the EU have openly stated and placed anomaly’s into the initial separation treaty that seem to restrain the UK’s ability to manoeuvre, this includes the separation of EU law from UK law....... therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the next phase of talks for leaving the EU will include this subject ....... so the question remains....How long will current EU laws, powers & treaties remain in place AFTER the UK exits the EU ..... & …… how will the UK transfer the legal powers, frameworks & constitutions into UK law when parliament is already fragmented .....the ratifying of legislation for a smooth seamless legal transition looks to be an impossibility at this moment in time .....
@@mikeyb4610 The citizens of the UK voted democratically in 2016 but their elected politicians have not, as yet, given them what they deserved=BREXIT. On the contrary, the citizens of the USA democratically voted in the current criminal junta and got just what it deserved. Go figure???
Thank you! This was a well made and very informing video. 10/10