[Nasrudith]

Reminds me of all of the scapegoating of the EU for local policies and outright fiction like banana curve standards.

Ironically the actual things to object to the EU about like their godawful internet policy proposals aren't on the radar.

Anyway UK has parliamentary supremacy so a constitution would be empty words without changing that. I would say that the policy seems very dangerous but constituions are messy in terms of getting ease of change right - especially in such an legal body. Imagine if nasty old bits like not allowing Jews to inherit property got embedded.

[rusk]

Imagine if nasty old bits like not allowing Jews to inherit property got embedded

Seems like a strawman, but I guess if that were the case it would have been amended out years ago ...

[Nasrudith]

Semantics about strawmen applied to history aside it still would have added significant friction to it. Antisemitism was downright fashionable until WW2 and it could have impeded more gradual progress like the first Jewish member of parliament. It can be changed but it is significantly harder and easily can wind up judged "not worth the effort". Just look at how long it has been since the US ratified an amendment to the constitution.

[rusk]

This also smacks of whattabouttery and is more an argument for not codifying antisemitism in your constitution than having a constitution at all ...