,
12 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Lots more to say, but my position is that (1) I agree we should in the long term move towards a written constitution, but (2) has to be genuinely consensus-based, (3) this government who are hostile to the rule of law and human rights should *not be trusted* with that process
Also, there is a dangerous anglophone bias in assuming that the only relevant comparison is the USA, where there is an out of date constitution which is practically impossible to amend, and highly politicised judges. There are other systems which are more of a middle ground
Sorry to keep going back to it, but I did predict this would happen! It's not just about Brexit or political views , there has been something important going on in the courts over a relatively long period which has led us here - but this crisis exacerbated newstatesman.com/politics/brexi… 
There is a long, ignominious history of Tory attempts to scrap Human Rights Act and replace with a "British Bill of Rights" - first promised by Cameron 13 years ago. Has to now failed because of a failure to propose anything better than the HRA and lack of parliamentary appetite
There has been an ongoing debate amongst human rights lawyers, entirely legitimate, between those who say that a Bill of Rights could be helpful and those (me amongst them) who say it should be opposed unless there is a govt who could be trusted not to use it to undermine rights
There is no better sign that this government cannot be trusted with our constitution than them attempting to ride roughshod over it (suspending parliament to avoid scrutiny!!) and then using the Supreme Court's smackdown of that to prompt a review of constitutional structures
Also, beware opportunists such as Rees Mogg, Gove, Raab who will seize on this opportunity to reigning their longstanding attempts to water down human rights laws in the U.K. There are many reasonable take homes from Miller 2 but the need to ‘reform’ the HRA is not one of them!
I agree with @jeff_a_king (his recent @CheerfulPodcast e.g.) that when it comes to developing a constitution the *process* must be considered properly before the *content* is even whispered. Has to be cross-Party, genuinely deliberative (not just a ‘consultation’) and inclusive
@jeff_a_king @CheerfulPodcast Jeff’s proposal is to take it out of parliament’s hands altogether and give to a citizens forum comprised of members of the public and representative of parties, then their proposal put directly to people. Would be radical and can’t see parliament ceding control but interesting
@jeff_a_king @CheerfulPodcast Allowing this government to run a program of constitutional reform would be like letting the gang who just unsuccessfully tried to rob your house change your locks and alarm system
They are constitutional bandits! They managed to unite 11 justices of the Supreme Court which is unprecedented. That says something
I warned that this was the way things would go a few months back prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after…
