All this rigor for a country without an actual formalised constitution. I mean, maybe the government should work on that first and make sure it has a right to work there first?

> Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify ... thus it is known as an uncodified constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

▲

dgxyz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Based on recent events, I wouldn't suggest a constitution makes much of a difference to an adversarial government.

▲

littlestymaar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This. The illusion that you could fend off tyranny with a piece of paper was always a bit ridiculous, and it shows.

▲

isk517 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Arguably it's purpose is to define where government responsibility ends and tyranny begins. Very useful if the population it applies to cares about it being violated

	▲	gizajob 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The Magna Carta was meant to formalise that spec 800 years ago.
	▲	exe34 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I suspect there is a hysteresis loop - it has to get really bad before the population changes phase.

▲

LegitShady 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

their goal is to expand the orwellian spying panopticon, not to codify people's rights.

▲

lifetimerubyist 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How's that piece of paper working out for you guys right now?

▲

bogdan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sorry but how is this relevant? Or did you just recently learn this and thought it's "interesting" to share?

	▲	Pet_Ant 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They want to have rigorous well-indexed system for the people in a country, when the system of the country isn't rigorous. When your constitution is ad hoc, it seems only fair that everything else is. Start with the foundation before formalising everything else.