The UKs inconsistent ways of making constitutional changes are being cruelly exposed by the Brexit maelstrom.
Take the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
It was clearly a signficant constitutional change, but introduced by a simple series of majority votes in Parliament.
1/
Take the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
It was clearly a signficant constitutional change, but introduced by a simple series of majority votes in Parliament.
1/
It tried to introduce a check on the Executive (PM) arbitrarily overturning it and calling Elections by introducing a requirement for 2/3rds of MPs to vote for an election.
BUT it only needs a simple majority to overturn the Act, by passing another Act to temporarily suspend it.
BUT it only needs a simple majority to overturn the Act, by passing another Act to temporarily suspend it.
If it had been a real constitutional change to a written constitution it would require some sort of super-majority (e.g. 2/3rds of MPs) to overturn or amend it.
But it wasn't, so it doesn't.
But it wasn't, so it doesn't.
I know it probably will not happen in this Parliament, but only because the Government does not have a majority.
If they did they could easily overturn the 2/3rds requirement thru this simple majoriy route. They could force an election even if nearly 50% of MPs did not want one.
If they did they could easily overturn the 2/3rds requirement thru this simple majoriy route. They could force an election even if nearly 50% of MPs did not want one.
And of course this is all happening because of a huge constitutional issue (Brexit) being settled by a simple majority referendum.
Again, it would be normal to require a super-majority and/or a minimum turnout in most democracies for such a change.
Not in the in the UK.
END
Again, it would be normal to require a super-majority and/or a minimum turnout in most democracies for such a change.
Not in the in the UK.
END
