Having witnessed Tony Blair's complete inability to form any sort of coherant legacy (of a positive nature, that is) Gordon Brown has actually come up with something quite cunning.

If he becomes Prime Minster, and if he manages to carry this out, he'll never be forgotten. He'll be taught in every history book and prescribed on every course in politics for all time. Naturally, it's a biggie, there's no doubt about it.

"Brown suggests he would deliver the UK's first written constitution, a document enshrining the roles of the monarchy, government, parliament and the judiciary, as well as the legal rights of citizens."

I'm in two minds about this idea really. On the one hand, we have now seen what can happen when someone who is happy to award himself any powers he likes regardless of precedence and good sense becomes leader. What has happened with Blair does suggest that we need a codifed document to prevent a future PM taking on inappropriate almost Presidential powers in such a way with no one able to prevent it.

Then again, if everything in our unwritten constitution was written down it would probably make War and Peace look like a short story. Even in a basic "bones" version, there is bound to be huge problems. Who gets to decide what goes in and what stays out? And there are much bigger questions that would need to be asked before we even think about pressing pen to paper.

For example, what about religion? In the last UK census 70% said they were Christian, but only 25% said they were actually members of a religion and just 7% actually went to church. 16% were non-religious. (Here's an anecdote; in that census, I put Christian just because I went to a Christian school and had no particular belief in anything. Just goes to show though...!) So which demographic do we appease on this brave new Constitution? All written Constitutions (to my knowledge) make a preamble statement at the beginning which enshrine either the secular or religious nature of the country. Would this country be prescribed as Church of England despite its increasing secularism, or secular despite its lack of seperation between church and state? That seems hardly a question that could be avoided without accusations of being deliberately vague. Whatever is decided somebody will be angered.

Another point has to be its relation to the European Union. The EU has made itself sovereign over our laws and has tendrils running throughout just about everything. A Constitution written for Britain now, in this day and age, surely could not avoid mentioning that fact. Would we be the first to actually have our subordination to the EU as part of our Constitution? And if so, would that make it next to impossible to ever get out should we ever wish to?
This is like opening Pandora's Box...

*** big giant hat tip goes out to Weekend Pundit for that borg/EU graphic - class!