[Pet_Ant]

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]

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

[littlestymaar]

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

[isk517]

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]

The Magna Carta was meant to formalise that spec 800 years ago.

[exe34]

I suspect there is a hysteresis loop - it has to get really bad before the population changes phase.

[LegitShady]

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

[lifetimerubyist]

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

[bogdan]

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

[Pet_Ant]

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.