The new constitution – live coverage
From the moment it was unveiled, the new constitution has sparked a debate about the limits of democracy.
Can the constitution withstand a popular uprising?
How will it be enforced?
Can it be amended?
And how can it be reconciled with the human rights promises enshrined in the constitution?
This is live coverage of the second edition of the constitution, which will be voted on in November.
This time, the BBC’s political editor, Joanna Reid, and I will be joined by a range of experts, including constitutional expert David Thomas, and the chair of the Constitutional Reform Committee, Lord Adonis.
This will be a live BBC2 show.
The first edition of The New Constitution was published in 2009.
Its main thrust is that the constitution must be democratic and constitutional, and it should include a new system of elections to be held every five years.
The aim of the new constitutions was to make sure there was enough time to make amendments and that those amendments were popular and uncontroversial.
But there are some major challenges ahead of this process.
The new constitutents are meant to give citizens a say, but it’s also crucial that they have a say.
How can they be sure that the new constitutional is democratic and that it is implemented?
It’s the sort of thing that you hear about in politics in the US, but in the UK, the answer is actually no.
In the UK we do have a system of parliamentary democracy, but that’s a bit of a mess.
In most democracies, people get a voice at the top of the parliament, and they get a vote on what happens at that level.
If there’s no parliamentary democracy and you don’t get a say at that top, that means there’s a very limited possibility of getting a change.
If people get the chance to say “No, I want a better constitution” or “I want something better” or whatever they like, that’s what they do.
That’s what democracy is about.
If you don�t have that democracy, then it’s a little bit like a democracy where you get to vote, but you don,t really get a chance to have your say.
There are some big issues about how the constitution should be drawn up, and how it should be written.
The big question is whether it’s fair.
How do you draw up a constitution that makes people accountable for their decisions and that they can actually see through?
There are a couple of big issues that are important.
The biggest is that there is a limit to how much power a member of parliament can exercise in Parliament.
The parliament has the power to decide when it is to make a change, but once that power is vested, there is no limit on how much that power can be exercised.
So there is an inherent problem with the constitution.
In addition, the constitution doesn’t have any provision for how to manage the power of the House of Lords.
The Lords can have the power, but they are not able to exercise that power until the next general election.
The constitution does provide for the appointment of a new House of Commons, but this is the first time in British history that a new parliament has been established.
The House of Representatives, which is set up in the 1660s to represent the British Parliament, has been abolished.
The second biggest issue is how do you make the rules for the election of MPs.
This is a bit like the UK’s House of Parliament, but without a standing army and a government.
The UK constitution allows for a small number of people to serve as members of the British House of Assembly.
So the idea is that you appoint people who are competent, who are experienced, and who have a background in politics.
And you can give them a vote, and once that vote is taken, they can then decide who is a member.
The problem is that this system of electing representatives is incredibly difficult to administer.
The main issue here is the power that the prime minister has over Parliament.
That is very different to the way that other countries administer their parliament.
In France, for example, you have the National Assembly.
The National Assembly represents the people, and that means that the people have the right to decide what is in the national interest, and when Parliament is debating the budget, the prime Minister can put forward an idea that has broad support, and if the government supports it, that government can pass it.
In Canada, there are several mechanisms for ensuring that there are democratic elections.
The federal election, which we have, is called by the Prime Minister, and you choose the Prime Ministers who are elected.
The other mechanism is called the House election, and in that election you choose who the House candidates are.
So you have these two separate systems, but both of those systems are extremely important in Canada.
The issue with these two systems is that, in some respects, they are very similar.
Both have a voting system, but the system for selecting