UK should consider referendum on the Royals

[Setton]

26 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Not having one was one of things which made Britain nimble on its feet in a ever changing world. sadly with the way parliament was acting and them not understanding the sense of history in not having a written constitution, we were fast approaching the need to have a written one. thankfully that has been avoided, and once again in this even faster changing world the UK can once again adapt to the future without constitutional reform and all the arguments, delay and inaction a written constitution brings.

Exactly! 

Luckily, we have a politically independent Supreme Court so we didn't need a written constitution to stop the unlawful suspension of Parliament. 

Good to see you're finally catching on Steve 

[Duke Wellington]

In the UK we have a double-pillar legal system with one being Common Law (Angle-Saxon legal system) and the other Codified Law (Roman legal system).

Common Law is about looking through historical records to find examples of when someone was tried before a King in Angle-Saxon times, or newer Court trials that can be historically traced all the back to Angle-Saxon times if someone goes through the trail of case history.

Common Law has some peculiarities in that Common Law from any Common Wealth nation is legally binding in England. So a Scottish Court using Common Law to rule that Parliament shouldn't have been prorogued is a sound judgement here in England. Of course, it can be challenged if there are any Common Law rulings in England to support throwing the case out.

Even weirder is that there is nothing to stop someone launching a Common Law trial using Indian Common Law (as an example) and having it enforced in England if there is no precedent in English Common Law for having it thrown out.