Documents Demonstrating An Individual Has The Right To Work In The Uk With No: Fill & Download for Free

I was surprised by the brevity of the Sunday Times regarding the leaked Operation Yellowhammer report presented to ministers last month. I had expected a proper impact assessment document with quantitative analytics into probabilities and ranges of economic and services disruptions expected (which would be in most professional impact assessments). But maybe this is just the high-level summary here. Anyway, in case you have not seen even this high-level summary, here are apparently the highlights of the leaked document:THE YELLOWHAMMER REPORTNo-deal Brexit preparations: the leaked Operation Yellowhammer documentThe Sunday TimesBASE SCENARIOWhen the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union in October 2019, all rights and reciprocal arrangements with the EU end.The UK reverts fully to “third country” status. The relationship between the UK and the European Union as a whole is unsympathetic, with many member states (under pressure from the European Commission) unwilling to engage bilaterally and implementing protections unilaterally, though some member states may be more understanding.No bilateral deals have been concluded with individual member states, with the exception of the reciprocal agreement on social security co-ordination with the Republic of Ireland. EU citizens living in the UK can retain broadly all rights and status that they were entitled before the UK’s exit from the EU, at the point of exit.Public and business readiness for no-deal will remain at a low level, and will decrease to lower levels, because the absence of a clear decision on the form of EU Exit (customs union, no deal etc) does not provide a concrete situation for third parties to prepare for. Readiness will be further limited by increasing EU Exit fatigue caused by the second extension of article 50.Business readiness will not be uniform – in general large businesses that work across sectors are likely to have better developed counting plans than small and medium-size businesses. Business readiness will be compounded by seasonal effects and factors such as warehouse availability.Private sector companies’ behaviour will be governed by commercial considerations, unless they are influenced otherwise.Her Majesty’s government will act in accordance with the rule of law, including by identifying the powers it is using to take specific actions.Risks associated with autumn and winter, such as severe weather, flooding and seasonal flu, could exacerbate any effects and stretch the resources of partners and responders.KEY PLANNING ASSUMPTIONSExit dayFor the purpose of freight flow and traffic management, as October 31 is a Thursday, Day 1 of Exit is now on a Friday rather than the weekend, which is not to our advantage. Exit Day may coincide with the half-term holiday, which varies across the UK.Member statesIn a small number of instances where the impacts of Brexit would be felt negatively in the EU as well as in the UK, member states may act in a way that could benefit the UK.Channel portsFrance will impose EU mandatory controls on UK goods on Day 1 of No Deal and has built infrastructure and IT systems to manage and process customs declarations and to support a risk-based control regime. On Day 1 of No Deal, 50%-85% of HGVs travelling via the short straits may not be ready for French customs. The lack of trader readiness combined with limited space in French ports to hold “unready” HGVs could reduce the flow rate to 40%-60% of current levels within one day.The worst disruption to the short Channel crossings might last 3 months before flow rates rise to about 50%-70% (as more traders get prepared), although disruption could continue much longer. In the event of serious disruption, the French might act to ensure some flow through the short Channel crossings.Disruption to Channel flow would also cause significant queues in Kent and delays to HGVs attempting to use the routes to travel to France. In a reasonable worst-case scenario, HGVs could face a maximum delay of 1½-2½ days before being able to cross the border. HGVs caught up in congestion in the UK will be unable to return to the EU to collect another load and some logistics firms may decide to avoid the route. Analysis to date has suggested a low risk of significant sustained queues at ports outside Kent that have high volumes of EU traffic, but the Border Delivery Group will continue to work directly with stakeholders at those ports to support planning readiness.Border checksUK citizens travelling to and from the EU may be subject to increased immigration checks at border posts. This may lead to passenger delays at St Pancras, Cheriton (Channel tunnel) and Dover, where border controls are juxtaposed. Depending on what plans EU member states put in place to cope with these increased immigration checks, it is likely delays will occur for UK arrivals and departures at EU airports and ports. This could cause some disruption on transport services. Travellers may decide to use alternative routes to complete their journey.Drugs and diseasei) The Border Delivery Group/Department for Transport planning assumption on reduced flow rates describes a pre-mitigation reasonable worst-case flow rate that could be as low as 40% on Day 1 of No Deal via the short straits [main Channel crossings], with significant disruption lasting up to six months. Unmitigated, this will have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies.Supply chains for medicines and medical products rely heavily on the short straits, which makes them particularly vulnerable to severe delays: three-quarters of medicines come via the short straits. Supply chains are also highly regulated and require transportation that meets strict Good Distribution Practices. This can include limits on transit times and temperature-controlled conditions. While some products can be stockpiled, others cannot because of short shelf lives. It will not be practical to stockpile six months’ supplies. The Department for Health and Social Care is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate these risks.ii) Any disruption that reduces, delays or stops the supply of medicines for UK veterinary use would reduce our ability to prevent and control disease outbreaks, with potential harm to animal health and welfare, the environment and wider food safety and availability, as well as, in the case of zoonotic diseases, posing a risk to human health. Industry stockpiling will not be able to match the 4-12 weeks’ stockpiling that took place in March 2019. Air freight capacity and the special import scheme are not a financially viable way to mitigate risks associated with veterinary medicine availability issues.Food and wateri) Certain types of fresh food supply will decrease. Critical elements of the food supply chain (such as ingredients, chemicals and packaging) may be in short supply. In combination, these two factors will not cause an overall shortage of food in the UK but will reduce availability and choice and increase the price, which will affect vulnerable groups. The UK growing season will have come to an end, so the agri-food supply chain will be under increased pressure for food retailers. Government will not be able to fully anticipate all effects on the agri-food supply chain. There is a risk that panic buying will disrupt food supplies.ii) Public water services are likely to remain largely unaffected, thanks to actions now being taken by water companies. The most significant single risk is a failure in the chemicals supply chain. The likelihood of this is considered low, and the impact is likely to be local, affecting only hundreds of thousands of people. Water companies are well prepared for any disruption: they have significant stocks of all critical chemicals, extensive monitoring of their chemicals supply chains (including transport and deliveries) and sharing agreements in place. In the event of a supply chain failure, or the need to respond rapidly to other water supply incidents, urgent action may need to be taken to make sure people continue to have access to clean water.Law and orderLaw enforcement data and information-sharing between the UK and the EU will be disrupted.Financial services and insuranceSome cross-border UK financial services will be disrupted. A small minority of insurance payments from UK insurers into the EU may be delayed.DataThe EU will not have made a data decision with regard to the UK before exit. This will disrupt the flow of personal data from the EU, where an alternative legal basis for transfer is not in place. In no-deal, an adequacy assessment could take years.FuelTraffic disruption caused by border delays could affect fuel distribution in the local area, particularly if traffic queues In Kent block the Dartford crossing, which would disrupt fuel supply in London and the southeast. Customer behaviour could lead to shortages in other parts of the country.Tariffs make UK petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability, but UK government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to big financial losses and the closure of two refineries (which are converted to import terminals) with about 2,000 direct job losses. Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions they directly supply. Government analysis of the impact of no-deal on refineries continues.Northern IrelandOn Day 1 of No Deal, Her Majesty’s government will activate the “no new checks with limited exceptions” model announced on March 13, establishing a legislative framework and essential operations and system on the ground, to avoid an immediate risk of a return to a hard border on the UK side.The model is likely to prove unsustainable because of economic, legal and biosecurity risks. With the UK becoming a “third [non-EU] country”, the automatic application of EU tariffs and regulatory requirements for goods entering Ireland will severely disrupt trade. The expectation is that some businesses will stop trading or relocate to avoid either paying tariffs that will make them uncompetitive or trading illegally; others will continue to trade but will experience higher costs that may be passed on to consumers. The agri-food sector will be hardest hit, given its reliance on complicated cross-border supply chains and the high tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockades. Price and other differentials are likely to lead to the growth of the illegitimate economy. This will be particularly severe in border communities where criminal and dissident groups already operate with greater freedom. Given the tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, there will be pressure to agree new arrangements to supersede the Day 1 model within days or weeks.Energy suppliesDemand for energy will be met, and there will be no disruption to electricity or gas interconnectors. In Northern Ireland there will not be immediate disruption to electricity supply on Day 1. A rapid split of SEM could occur months or years after the EU Exit. In this event there would not be issues about security of supply. However, there will probably be marked price rises for electricity customers (business and domestic), with associated wider economic and political effects. Some participants could exit the market, exacerbating economic and political effects.GibraltarBecause of the imposition of checks at its border with Spain (and the knock-on effect of delays from the UK to the EU), Gibraltar will see disruption to the supply of goods (including food and medicines) and to shipments of waste, plus delays of four-plus hours for at least a few months in the movement of frontier workers, residents and tourists across the border.Prolonged border delays over the longer term are likely to harm Gibraltar’s economy. As on the UK mainland, cross-border services and data flow will be disrupted. Despite the time extension to the UK’s exit from the EU, Gibraltar has still not taken the decisions to invest in contingency infrastructure (such as port adjustments and waste management equipment) and there are still concerns that Gibraltar will not have passed all necessary legislation for no-deal, opening up legal risks mainly for the government of Gibraltar. Gibraltar continues to plan for less significant border delays than in our Yellowhammer scenario. Crown dependencies may be affected by supply chain disruption.Brits in Europei) UK nationals will lose their EU citizenship and can expect to lose associated rights and access to services over time, or be required to access them on a different basis. All member states have now published legislative proposals, but not all have passed legislation to secure all rights for UK nationals.There is a mixed picture across member states in terms of the level of generosity and detail in the legislation. In some member states, UK nationals need to take action now. Complex administrative procedures within member states, language barriers and uncertainty regarding the UK political situation are contributing to some UK nationals being slow to take action. Demands for help on Her Majesty’s government will increase significantly, including an increase in consular inquiries and more complex and time-consuming consular assistance cases for vulnerable UK nationals.Cross-government support, including continued close engagement and clear communications from UK government departments and the departmental agencies, will be needed to help manage the demand.ii) An EU member state would continue to pay a pension it currently pays to a UK national living in the EU.iii) The commission and individual member states do not agree to extend the current healthcare arrangements for UK state pensioners and tourists beyond October 31, 2019, and refuse offers by the UK to fund treatments. Member states take no further action to guarantee healthcare for UK nationals and treat them in the same way as the other “third country” nationals. UK pensioners, workers, travellers and students will need to access healthcare in different ways, depending on the country. Healthcare systems may require people to demonstrate residency and current or previous employment, to enter a social insurance scheme or to purchase private insurance. Member states should treat people with urgent needs but may require them to pay after the fact. There is a risk of disruption for patients, and a minority could face substantial costs.Protests and policeProtests and counter-protests will take place across the UK, using up police resources. There may also be a rise in public disorder and community tensions.FishingUp to 282 EU and European Economic Area nations’ fishing vessels could enter illegally or are already fishing in UK waters: up to 129 vessels in English waters, 100 in Scottish waters, 40 in Welsh waters and 13 in Northern Irish waters on Day 1. This is likely to cause anger and frustration in the UK catching sector, which could lead to clashes between fishing vessels and an increase in non-compliance in the domestic fleet.Competing demands on UK government and maritime departmental agencies and their assets could put enforcement and response capabilities at risk, especially in the event of illegal fishing, border violations (smuggling and illegal migration) and any disorder or criminality arising as a result, eg violent disputes or blockading of ports.The poorLow-income groups will be disproportionately affected by rises in the price of food and fuel.Social careThere is an assumption that there will be no big changes in adult social care on the day after EU Exit. The adult social care market is already fragile because of the declining financial viability of providers.An increase in inflation after the UK’s EU exit would affect providers of adult social care through increasing staff and supply costs, and might lead to failure within 2-3 months for smaller providers and 4-6 months for larger ones. There are also local risks — transport or staff disruption, severe winter weather or flu — that could exacerbate existing market fragility and that cumulatively could stretch the resources of providers and local authorities.Intelligence will continue to be gathered to prepare for any effects on the sector, including closure of services and handing-back of contracts that are not part of the normal market function. In addition, by mid-August we will look at the status of preparations in four local authorities identified as concerns.The good news, of course, is the above is managed by a UK cabinet with a combined record of exactly zero in delivering any national policies successfully, and this cabinet is led by this man (with an identical zero record):ADDENDUMThe government was finally compelled to release the Operation Yellowhammer report which can be found on the link in this following answer:What do you think about the Yellowhammer impact document being released?Apparently, there are different versions of the report and the government’s version is claimed to be the “worst case assumptions” even though it is practically identical to the Sunday Times’ “Base Scenario”. So we are still not at all clear why the government changed the title.

So, I figured I'd put an answer down here, partly to answer, and partly to correct a couple of errors in the question.Before I hop in to this answer, I felt that I should define what a constitution is. So, a constitution is basically a set of principles, precedents, rules and regulations that dictate how a government runs.As such, claims that the UK "doesn't have a constitution" are entirely false (this isn't included in the question, but in at least one of the answers). The UK has a constitution - it has to, otherwise no-one would know how the government works. However, it doesn't have a Constitution - a single document, signed by a bunch of people. The fact there is no single document means it is uncodified, as mentioned in the question.Also, when talking about constitutions in general, I will use an uncapitalized word. When discussing the US Constitution document, as signed by John Hancock et. al., I will use a capital.Right. With the definition and that comment out of the way, I'll deal with the errors first:The US Constitution has one primary source, yes. However, it does not have one single source. There are certain elements that affect things, but which do not come from the Constitution itself.For example, one example of precedent in US politics is the State of the Union. The Constitution states that the President "shall from time to time" give Congress information about "the state of the union". It never specifically states that this must be done in person, or as a speech, or every year. At least one President - Jefferson, if memory serves - wrote long letters to Congress to fulfil this duty. The idea of an annual speech is a modern convention, with little basis in the Constitution itself. This is even mentioned in the tv show The West Wing; when other characters are discussing cancelling the speech, CJ Cregg asks if they're allowed to do that. One of the others points out that all the President must do is keep Congress updated, so if he bought them each a subscription for the New York Times, he would have fulfilled his obligation. Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but it shows I'm not the only one to have noticed this point.Laws can also have an impact. The Civil Rights Act has an effect on how the government runs and is run, so it is, in effect, a part of the Constitution. Legal rulings are another source.So, the sources of the US Constitution are actually the same as the UK. The difference is that the UK mostly uses statue laws and conventions, with a few authoritative texts to clarify some points; the US system reverses that, and instead uses a single authoritative text (the Constitution) as the basis, and all other sources are used to clarify issues that arise.The UK Constitution does actually have some checks and balances. Many American students I've spoken to see to believe that you need separation of power to have checks and balances; in fact, this is not necessarily true.There is no formal separation of power in the UK, really. One could possibly argue that the fact that members of the aristocracy cannot sit in the House of Commons (and correspondingly, that members of the 'peasantry' cannot sit in the Lords) is an example. It's the only example of any separation of power I can think of, and it seems to be an exceptionally weak point to me.EDIT: As Paul Weston has pointed out to me, there is one separation of power in the UK that does not exist in the US. That is the Queen. As it currently stands, all laws are signed by the Queen, and are issued in her name. The military swears allegiance not to the flag or the country, but to the monarch. Even British passports are issued in the Queen’s name: the front page reads, “Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance”. Using the monarch in this way ensures stability and continuity, but it is an important separation of power. Republics, as Paul Weston pointed out, can sometimes fall if the ruler of the moment is popular enough with the troops. The UK system avoids that by having the Queen as the nominal head of the forces - and thus, she’s the one the soldiers swear their allegiance to, and she’s the one they ‘love’ - but having power rest in Parliament. In the event of Theresa May deciding to invade Calais as a bargaining trick over Brexit, the Queen could tell the troops not to. They ought to listen to the Queen, as she’s technically their CinC. However, if the Queen loses it - and orders someone to invade her ancestral German homelands - Parliament could, in extremis, depose her. So, separation of power, and balance of a sort.There are some other forms of checks and balances. For example, there is an Official Opposition in the UK - which doesn't really exist in the US. They are meant to hold the government to account.The House of Commons can also hold the government to account, and can even remove a government from power with a Vote of No Confidence. This usually forces a new general election; the closest parallel in the US would be if someone could conduct a mass impeachment of an entire administration at once. Really, though, this never happens, and as a result, the US spends two, four, or six years (the Constitutionally-mandated term length of a Congressman, President, and Senator, respectively) stuck with whomever was elected - however much you hate them.The House of Lords can send Bills back to the Commons, thus slowing down the government's progress on some things. In fact, this happened very recently, on a bill regarding tax credits.In theory, the monarchy could refuse to sign a bill. This hasn't happened in centuries, and no-one knows what would happen. Most likely, there would be a constitutional crisis ending with the abdication of the monarch, but in theory, the monarch could stop a bill. It's likely that the monarch already makes private comments to the PM, and this might encourage the government to moderate bills before they come to her desk. So, again, you see the role of the Queen.In every one of these cases, there are 'counter-powers'. As I mentioned, the monarch would probably lose a fight against the government; the House of Lords can be overruled by the Commons; the Whip system in the Commons means the government will generally have control over MPs, and can (try to) force them to vote as instructed. It bears mentioning that there are counter powers in the US too; a President can veto a bill, but a veto can be overturned, for example.It's difficult to argue that checks and balances in the UK are anything but somewhat haphazard, and nowhere near as strong as in the US. Even so, there are some checks and balances, even if they're not very good.The idea that the UK Constitution has no procedure for amendment is wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's wrong.Literally any bill passed by the Commons and signed into law by the monarch changes the Constitution. This can be any law, in theory, but some laws are more constitutional than others, as Orwell didn't say.For example, the 1911 Parliament Act was hugely important, as it enshrined the Commons as the dominant chamber in Parliament; the Human Rights Act of 1998 was similarly important. The laws that set up the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament (also 1998) were also hugely important constitutionally - far more than, say, the Finance Act of 1998. Passed in the same year, that Act made some changes to tax law. Although both are part of the UK Constitution, fiddling around with excise duties isn't quite as important, from a constitutional standpoint, as creating a regional Parliament for Scotland...Similarly, other sources can change the UK Constitution. Common law - that is, judicial rulings - chance every time there is a court case. In the UK, judges even have broad enough powers to actually interpret the law in direct opposition to statue law. For example, in the Re Sigsworth ruling of 1935, a man was banned from inheriting his mother's estate, on the grounds that he had murdered her. There was, at the time, a statute law which said the exact opposite - so the common law overruled statute, and redefined that small part of English law.I’ll also edit this and add in - at least for the moment, EU law has some impact on the UK Constitution. That will cease to be true when the UK leaves the EU, but it is true, and those reading in the future should know that from 1973 until 201X, the EU could change the UK Constitution too. (Side-note for my future readers: Please use your time machine to send me a robot helper. Please message me for exact specifications on what I would my robot to look like/do.)So. Those are the errors that needed addressing. Now, on to your question:Which is better?The only honest way to answer this is to say "neither". Or perhaps, "both". Or, most accurately - “It depends”.In the end, the whole issue boils down to a discussion of political culture. Every country has its own national character, and as part of that, there is a clear expectation that the citizens have of their government. In a strong democracy, that expectation should shape the constitution. Therefore, each country would ideally have a constitution that fits the eccentricities of the country.Let me explain.British people do not really like democracy. We will proudly tell everyone that we invented it but - shockingly - that’s not really true. We call Westminster "the mother of Parliaments" - which is true, due to our quaint habit of imposing democracy on the peoples of the Empire. Like it or not, many countries, including the USA, have British-style government that is a hang-over from when the countries were part of Britain's Empire.But despite these lofty, semi-factual claims of how British democracy has shaped the world, the British do not embrace democracy. Not really.Look at the current Parliament. As I write this Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Opposition, is currently being criticised for withdrawing the party whip for the vote on military action in Syria. What this means is that he gave his party a free vote - he let them vote however they wished.Ordinarily, the whip system means that the party leader makes a decision, and the whips inform everyone if they are to vote Yay or Nay. The individual MPs are given very little choice in this. There is the option to rebel, of course, but doing this too often will usually get you in trouble. In fact, if you rebel too much, the party will "deselect" you - essentially firing you from the party. You then have to choose a new party, or stand as an independent.That system is not entirely democratic. But Corbyn allowed his MPs to vote however they wished, without risk of punishment. That move meant that the vote was truly democratic; the MPs were doing their job - they were voting in a way that they thought best represented the interests of their constituents, rather than voting in a way that was best for their own careers.What Corbyn did was eminently democratic, and a great many British people disagree with it. The British do not want true democracy; they want a strong leader.It is no coincidence that a British man, Lord Hailsham, commenting on British politics, invented the phrase "elected dictatorship". That is essentially what the UK system creates.Once every five years, the British people vote. In most cases, the first-past-the-post system gives a clear result, handing one party a majority. The leader of the winning party has the whip system to keep his/her MPs in line, and enough power of patronage to keep everything else going.To expand on that point, consider the House of Lords. As it is appointed by the PM, it generally winds up being 'packed' with MPs from the current ruling party. However, that takes a year or two to happen, so for the first year(s) of a government, the Lords is comprised of a different party to the government. As such, there is a convention that the House of Lords will not block a bill that was in a government's manifesto. Then, after a year or two, the Lords is dominated by the 'right' party again, and it all goes back to a single, strong leader.The practical upshot of all of this is that for five years, the winning party is in government, and there are very few limits on their powers. There are some limits in theory, as I mentioned, but in practice, as long as the government doesn't absolutely take the piss, they can do whatever they wish. Sure, if a government decided to pass a law to murder everyone's first-born, they might face some opposition. But I suspect that a bill increasing surveillance - especially in the wake of the recent attacks in Paris and California - will go through with little more than token resistance.This is the system in Britain, and people like it. There was a referendum about changing to a system of proportional representation, which would lead to more coalition governments. The proposal was overwhelmingly defeated. The LibDem-Cons. Coalition was fairly unpopular on both sides. People on both of the aisle strongly dislike the 'other party' - and yet still, the British wanted to keep a system that would frequently lead to a group that half of the country see as 'the wrong side' getting elected.Even amongst the Labour Party - who resoundingly lost the last election - there does not seem to be any interest in changing the system. The Labour supporters are just waiting, and hoping that they'll win in 2020. Similarly, the Tories sat and watched New Labour, waiting for 'their turn'. As far as I know, Labour in the 1980s, despite seemingly having no change of getting into government - they were out of power for 18 years, from Thatcher's first win in 1979 until Blair beat Major in 1997 - didn't put any political capital into changing the system. They were waiting until they won, and they had the power to enact their own policies.The fact is, the British want a strong leader. British people want to elect a (wo)man who can actually deliver on their promises. The idea that a leader could be elected, do very little, and then defend himself by pointing out the legislative refused to do what he wanted is hard for British people to understand. If you can't be sure a man will do what he said he would during the election, then why on Earth would you vote for him?Of course, the end result tends to be one of two options. Option one is that 'your side' loses, the 'wrong side' get in, and you spend five years moaning. Option two is that 'your side' wins and get in, but then quickly turn out to be untrustworthy bastards. Then, you spend four years and fifty weeks moaning that they didn't do what they promised, or didn't do it quickly enough, or that they did it and it didn't work.Is it a sensible system? No. But the British like it.But an American would hate it. Passionately. Of course they would - they have a different political culture. Americans expect different things from their government, as a result of a different history, different culture, and a different experience.The American nation was born from a fight to escape English oppression. The end result is that freedom was the highest ideal for the Founding Fathers, and it became the single most important principle for the new republic. Washington even turned down the offer of becoming a new King, in order to uphold the ideals of freedom and equality.I also don't think that it would be unfair to say that the US system was designed with the aim of making it impossible - or at least, very very very very very hard - for the government to take away your rights. If the House of Representatives were to try anything, the Senate would stop them. If the Senate decided to help out, then the President would stop them. And if he failed, the Supreme Court could step in. Lots of checks and balances, complete separation of power, and very little chance that the government could take away the rights of the people.Now, that shines a light on the fundamental strength of each constitution, and also shows that the strength of the constitution is its greatest weakness.The British constitution is flexible and adaptable, changing quickly and easily to any situation. Britain essentially outlawed slavery with a single Act; for America to do the same, it took years of failed debates, and half a decade of Civil War. And even then, the country experienced a century of segregation. Segregation was only legal - that it, is was only enshrined in state or federal laws, and not in the Constitution itself. And yet, repealing the Jim Crow Laws was still like pulling teeth.So, the British Constitution has the strength of being so easily changed, while the American Constitution has the weakness of being rapidly outdated. The whole "three-fifths of a man" line shines an uncomfortable light on an unfortunate part of the US' history. But it's not just that; deciding to have directly elected Senators for example. The calls for such a thing started in the early 19th century, but an amendment wasn't passed to that effect until the early 20th. Even after it was written, the amendment took a year to be approved. The British system could have done the same thing in a matter of days, if needed.The best - if rather controversial - example is gun control. After the Dunblane massacre, the British government passed two laws within a year (it happened in 1997, and as mentioned previously, was an election; the Tory government under Major passed one, and Blair's New Labour passed a follow-up). In less than a year, andwith a stroke of the Queen's pen, owning guns became significantly harder.America has been debating gun control ever since I started following US politics with any interest, and that was almost 15 years ago. I'd need to check the figures, but I expect that the number of gun deaths is in the hundreds of thousands. There have been a dozen major shootings I can name from the top of my head, including the deaths of a classful of primary school children. Not only has nothing happened, but it's likely that nothing will happen for some time.Why? Well, because passing an amendment to the Constitution is a long, hard process, and it's basically impossible when even a minority don't like the idea.So America's constitution keeps her from changing. It keeps her tied to the past, which is ironic as Britain is the older nation. But at the same time, that very immovability is the greatest strength of the US Constitution.If an American government decided to eliminate free speech, they would need to get rid of the First Amendment. Just like with the Second, there is absolutely no way in Hell that would happen. Not quickly, anyway. But in Britain?One law would do it. One law, and poof - no more free speech. In Britain, our civil rights hang from a quite precarious thread. The Tories have discussed repealing the Human Rights Act, which is the closest thing the UK has to a Bill of Rights. Nothing stops the government from changing, or simply abandoning it. Maybe, just maybe, there would be such a public outcry that they'd stop. That happened when Margaret Thatcher tried to bring the poll tax in.But public outcry doesn't always work. There were many in Britain at the time who didn’t want to go to war - polls at time put opposition to the war at 38%; Memories of Iraq: did we ever support the war? - and two Cabinet members resigned over the issue. It’s not exactly common for even one Cabinet member to resign in protest, but for two to resign at once is very rare. There was also public outcry and demonstrations - an anti-war protest the month before the War had attendance of 750,000 to 1 million people. In contrast, a demonstration against the poll tax in 1991 had attendance of only 250,000 people. Despite this large public outcry, the Iraq War went ahead.For centuries, the only thing that has stopped the British government from simply abolishing the civil rights of the people is a sense of fair play. You see, it just wouldn't be cricket, old boy. Taking away everyone’s rights - dashed unsporting, don't you know?But the uncomfortable fact is that they could. And they can't in America.So, which constitution is better? Well, Americans strode through a fire to get where they are. They had to fight for their rights. They don't want to lose them, and a great many will (literally) fight, kill, and die to protect those rights. So, they want lots of protections from their government. Even if it means that much-needed change is delayed, many see it as an acceptable price to pay.Again, just look at the reactions: even though the country has been debating gay marriage, is still debating gun control, and despite the other issues facing the country, no-one is suggesting changing to a Parliamentary model, or significantly weakening the separation of powers. People seem to accept that a slow pace of change is the price you pay for restraining the government, and the country on the whole seems happy with that choice.The British wouldn't be happy with the same choice, I don't think. The country hasn't been conquered since 1066, and unless you count the traditional wealth gap or the fact that we live so near to France, there hasn't been much oppression in the nation's history (Ireland is an exception, but then, most of them aren't British any more). The English have never had to deal with jack-booted thugs running through the streets; there were never death camps built in the Highlands; the Welsh haven't been driven into the sea.So, the British haven't had a reason to distrust their government. Even the revelations that GCHQ were reading everyone's emails was accepted with a certain degree of bored disinterest. In America, NSA's Prism created news and handwringing; GCHQ's powers were almost glossed over. To some extent, I think that people already knew it was true - they expected the government was doing that. And for the most part, they don't care. They see surveillance as the price for a peaceful, ordered society where the trains don't explode and you can go to a pub without getting shot by terrorists.The only British people I've ever seen complain about something like Internet surveillance are the young, and they seem to be influenced by the American viewpoint. They've read about and picked up points from the US, which may explain why they're out of step with the political culture of the rest of the country. Political culture changes, of course, and maybe this is the next shift... but for now, and unlike the US, that idea of freedom above all is still a minority opinion, and so doesn't control the debate.Everything has gone surprisingly well in the UK, considering how few safeguards there are. The potential for abuse is staggering, and yet there don't seem to have been any major incidents. But the British don't consciously think of that; they want a strong leader, to do the right thing. And so, they want a constitution that gives the leader power, and has very few limitations.Which constitution is better will depend very much on which mindset you feel to be the most correct. Or least incorrect.So, which is better: it depends. It depends on you, and your fellow countrymen - and on what you want your relationship to be with your government.Sorry for the length.

Hmm.I’m not American nor do I live in the US.So in one way, I really shouldn’t answer this… but in an other way, if Trump’s words and actions are negatively affecting people thousands of miles away, it’s probably not only relevant, but also indicative of the breadth of impact that Trump is having on the people of the planet at large.Here in Scotland, I’m not sure we use the term ‘liberal’ in the same way as the Americans tend to. In terms of categorisation, I guess you could say that we have people with left wing or socialist leanings and we have more right wing, capitalist types. A liberal here is someone who doesn’t really have a strong opinion or specific leanings. There are more detailed and perhaps clearer definitions of a British liberal here if you’re interested… In any case I thought I’d cover this off, since I guess I’m supposed to be a liberal to answer the question. I guess, since I see multi-billionaire capitalists ripping money out of the system both here and in the States and sharing it only amongst themselves then you could say that I currently have left wing leanings - you may wish to call this a liberal if you like.So let’s get started. First Donald Trump.Trump is aggressive, reckless and self obsessed. It would be easy to prove that this is not just my opinion.This negatively affects me.It is surely the case that all the countries of the world are equally responsible for the maintenance, and the advancement of the planet and everything in it. So, since Trump is a leader of a major player / contributor to the world’s decisions and activities, I’m therefore personally involved. People in the USA are obviously more involved… but the things he does affects everyone.Let’s talk about humans and betterment….When you buy a car that is new and compare it to an old car, you will notice that newer cars are more efficient, safer and generally better than older cars. They break down less often, have cleverer and more functional systems on board and are more comfortable. This is because of progress. People build the new versions from lessons learned in the past.This is standard human behaviour and explains the advancement of us as a race generally. You didn’t really need me to tell you this!However, now let’s look at human leadership through the years. In the past there have been terrible leaders.Their actions have been fully documented - and warning signs from their behaviours have been accurately preempted by those looking to learn lessons from the past and for the future.Bad leaders are easy to spot, behave in predictable and uniform ways and can be stopped… if not stopped, then at least not repeated.Also, throughout history there have been many excellent leaders.These people have been efficient, honest, careful politicians and team players with affable behaviour and great statesman-like attitudes that nurture their people into becoming better. These are the leaders that we uphold as being great. They grow economies, they are stone walls to selfish pressure groups and they garner serious respect from everyone around them including even their opposition and competitors.As I mentioned, we as a race, build on our past. We remove poor design and learn from our mistakes. Our cars improve over time because of this… so why not our leaders? Why is it that, after thousands of years of documented history, we find ourselves in a position where the political systems we have invented and still use to this day allow someone to take control of a huge and powerful nation who has no demonstrable skill at ever doing anything remotely praiseworthy, honest or statesman-like?I am negatively affected by Donald Trump because I weep for the state of humanity as a whole… he is a retrograde step in life. A egotist at the helm of a country with only one interest. Himself.Outside of any personal or political bias, it is demonstrably provable that he is a bad leader… and this data was easy to obtain prior to election. Yet here we are!It’s staggering that a man who screams ‘fake news’ (and even claims to have coined the phrase!) uses exactly this to get elected and to control opinions via Fox News. Amazing that people in the US that celebrate freedom of the country and routinely uphold the values of ‘free speech’ actually enable a news organisation to blatantly indoctrinate the masses to such an unapologetically absurd level. How exactly is America ‘land of the free’?So, amazing though it sounds, in light of the fact that this continues unchallenged, we will need to prepare ourselves for his second term in office since the system that put him there shows no sign of weakening.Whilst Trump’s ‘people’ echo chamber their understanding of the world and tool up to vote at the next election, we (who actually see this for what it is) shamefully take this insanity lying down.Here’s how 2000 children are separated from their parents as a direct result of his policies.Here’s when he resigned the US from the Paris Climate accord. The only country in the world to do this.These decisions are Trump’s doings. It’s his fault…. but really, in a way it’s not his fault since he’s always been like this. Why are we actually surprised? - He’s been behaving pretty consistently. It’s the voters that put him there… that empowered him. And I’m led to believe that a fairly large proportion of them are still pleased that they did so.The staggering and unchallengable data supporting the path for the division of wealth is clearly an unsustainable corporate abomination done at the cost of the people throughout the world. And it is Trump’s jaw dropping shenanigans that work brilliantly at diverting our attention to the continuation of this monopolistic destruction.You read these words…. you agree with them… you might disagree with them…. and it doesn’t really matter because still nothing changes.It seems to be our destiny to lose no matter what.A free country with no freedom.An age of enlightenment and information where people sit and seem unable to educate themselves.A world where there are openly available lessons from the past that we just look at and apathetically shrug off.I don’t want to read any more news like this. Instead, I want to see a world improve by having governments (the UK included) separated from the largescale businesses they protect (and therefore the tiny percentage of individuals that control them).I want to see people accurately informed by honest media. The people need to know the actual truth before they vote. It’s a horrible mistake to give voting freedom to people who are hot-housed into opinions that are manufactured to benefit the elite.I want to see people caring for people. I want to see people caring for the environment. I want to see governments reflecting and enabling this care. It is our no. 1 priority.With Trump, we see an openly corrupt and power-mad, seat of the pants loud mouth with no skill or qualities driving the world into a horrible Orwellian future where the people actually find themselves endangering the whole planet by inexplicably electing what amounts to otherwise being a pseudo puppet dictator that is merely a smokescreen to the 1% of the 1%ers who own 90% of everything in the world.I might be British and in the UK, but I’m affected and negatively so. Since I list some of Trump’s actions that have affected me…. and I’m probably a liberal… I think I’ve answered the question well enough.(Edited for some spelling, grammar…. and cleared a few things up on the way past.)