This is an immature comment to be coming from a party seeking representation in Parliament. There are very real concerns surrounding how a written constitution could be implemented, and to dismiss them in this way is concerning. The big advantage to the Westminster system we have currently is the flexibility it offers, and the United States is a good example of how a strong constitution can lead to the promotion and protection of values out of step with modern ones. This is a valid concern, and it deserves a serious response.

This is where we need more detail in how your proposals are to be implemented. Is this written constitution sovereign? You’ve mentioned maintaining Parliamentary sovereignty, so I presume not. The only check then is the Upper House’s role to determine constitutional compliance (inferring from context). How extensive are their powers? Can they delay and comment, or can they actively kill bills with serious constitutional problems? Is all legislation examined, or only that with potential implications? How is appointment vs. election going to be balanced, and what would the grounds for appointment be? Given the solemn nature of this, is it appropriate to have the check on constitutional breaches be politicians that will face election and ramifications of their decisions? Will judiciary be appointed to this Upper House – which seems appropriate, given the legal nature of it – and if so, how are you going to protect them from becoming politicized in the process?

Many, perhaps even most, of your ideas here I find myself agreeing with, but the devil is in the details, and the utter lack of them is a serious concern.