Reagardless of the good taste or otherwise of these comparisons with Nazi germany (and @davidallengreen has a long thread in defence), one problem with these comparisons is that the Weimar Republic *did* have a constitution that prohibited what happened.

/1 https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1313157622665744384

The German Constitution of 1919 was not like the UK's today. It had, for example, an entrenched list of human rights very similar to those in the ECHR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution#Main_Part_2:_Basic_Rights_and_Obligations_of_Germans

/2

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 also, on its face, looks pretty good, with an even more formidable list of human rights

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

/3

The standard conservative argument against changing the UK's constitution is that these rules did no good. The UK, with its Diceyan concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty did not fall into barbarity. States with seemingly much more secure protections for citizens did.

/4

I love rules, but ultimately they won't protect us unless the officials, elected and otherwise, protect us.

Nazi laws were possible not because of defects in drafting of the Weimar Constitution, but because officials (judges, the police etc) accetped them.

/5

Two important points.

1. There is a chasm between the posited rules and whether human rights are in fact respected.

2. The most important factor in creating acceptance of constitutional arrangements is the passage of time.

/6