Raindown alienation, Leave this country...

[Project-2501]

As I said in another thread the control is very much with the big companies. But would you like to live somewhere where the big companies have so much control that they can get laws passed which stop people declaring bankrupcy?

And I'd like to see the monster raving loonies in power here

 

[ayase]

I think I'd rather people didn't get into a position where they needed to declare bankruptcy in the first place. Again, I think the difference I would call attention to is that you have a choice in whether banks / businesses have some level of control over you; You can choose not to patronise them in the first place. You can't do that with the government.

 

[shira]

Overall, the U.S. has a vastly superior legal system and legislative process, just by the default of it being one of the world's pre-eminent republics while the U.K. (hilariously for a modern country) still has a hereditary, fundamentally anti-freedom monarchy.

That's just totally wrong. Their constitution sucks balls too. The US is a very young in terms of its law, and the law is still 'establishing' itself (We've done comparisons with the American legal system briefly in Law).

There is no problem in our legislative process at all. The Monarchy in the UK have no power over Parliament whatsoever, and Parliament can pass laws with or without royal consent. The monarchy is simply a big tourist attraction, which brings money into the UK.

Our law is divided nicely into 3 branches, which (in theory) makes things fair. We have the Legislators, Executives, and the Judiciary. Our law making process is entirely democratic, and on any moral issues every MP if free to vote for/against their parties stance on it. I don't see a problem at all with out legislative process.

We had Human Rights here before the EU came about, and have worked on the basis of innocent until proven guilty for a very long time. Infact, the worst thing to happen to the UK is the EU. It undermines the supremacy of Parliament, and our Parliament is, in pretty much every way, the only democratic way of law making.

Sorry, I just can't stand it when people think the USA has a good legal system, especially when comparing it with ours.

For people to be truly free, they need to be safe. That means good healthcare, good education, good welfare in general. It is the responsibility of states to provide that to all it's citizens.

I totally agree with this though.

 

[CitizenGeek]

That's just totally wrong. Their constitution sucks balls too.

The U.S. constitution is perhaps the greatest piece of law ever written.

The U.K. doesn't even have a constitution.

There is no problem in our legislative process at all. The Monarchy in the UK have no power over Parliament whatsoever, and Parliament can pass laws with or without royal consent. The monarchy is simply a big tourist attraction, which brings money into the UK.

Actually, British law-making is deeply, inherently flawed for the reasons I go into later on in this post.

As for the monarchy, how can a state be free if it's sovereign is always going to be a person who has attained that position by virtue of their bloodline? A monarchy is a grotesque stain on the idea of democracy and freedom. I know the Queen is a lovely, polite lady, but I honestly do not understand why so few Britons are republicans.

Our law is divided nicely into 3 branches, which (in theory) makes things fair. We have the Legislators, Executives, and the Judiciary. Our law making process is entirely democratic, and on any moral issues every MP if free to vote for/against their parties stance on it. I don't see a problem at all with out legislative process.

In practice, however, this division of powers is incredibly weak in the U.K. The legislature and the executive are basically the same thing. All of the executives sit in one house of the legislature and that undermines the separation of powers. In the UK, a party must gain a majority of seats in the legislature before it can assume the executive roles. As such, the whole idea of the legislature doing checks and balances on the power of the executive is completely undermined. Likewise, judicial appointments in the U.K. are made by legal boards, not either of the other powers. Again, the idea of the three branches of government watching over one another is totally and completely undermined.

In the U.S., one party may control the executive but may not have majorities in either houses of congress. As such the executives will have to work with the legislators (of their own party and most of the time, their opposition) to work out the best laws they can. The very nature of U.K. politics means never happens. The party with the executives must also be the party with a majority of the votes in a legislature - so any law an executive wants passed, will always be passed without any debate in Westminster.Furthermore, the House of Lords has virtually no power; it's a waste of space. The U.S. Senate has a real and important role to play. Also, unlike in the U.K. judicial appointments are made by executives and then confirmed by legislatures.

The ideal behind of breaking government into 3 branches was to allow for each branch to act as a check against the other. This ideal is very real in American law, but completely non-existent in British law.

It undermines the supremacy of Parliament, and our Parliament is, in pretty much every way, the only democratic way of law making.

What about the European parliament is undemocratic?

Sorry, I just can't stand it when people think the USA has a good legal system, especially when comparing it with ours.

The U.K. didn't even have a proper supreme court until last year. The U.S. has had a proper, functional supreme court since 1789.

American law has always been about the struggle for a more perfect state, a more perfect set of laws. I really can't say the same about British law. And the silly anachronisms (those stupid wigs and robes for lawyers that you've passed onto our legal system here in Ireland) are just ridiculous. The division of legal practitioners into solicitors and barristers is just a way for lawyers to make even more money - this does not happen in the U.S., one does not have to pay a solicitor on top of a barrister in order to go ahead with civil cases. If I want to be inspired by how robust a legal system can be, I certainly do not look to the U.K. ....

 

[shira]

The U.K. doesn't even have a constitution.

Wrong. The UK doesn't have a written constitution. This is simply because of our legal systems age not for any other reason. It is impossible to break the British constitution. Why do you think we have to have an election every 5 years?

In practice, however, this division of powers is incredibly weak in the U.K. The legislature and the executive are basically the same thing.

I must confess, hence me saying "In theory". I find it hard to differentiate the two myself (when it comes to essays relating to the separation of powers, it's a bitch).

Furthermore, the House of Lords has virtually no power; it's a waste of space.[/quote]

It has no power because the members of the House of Lords are unelected. They're there to advise the commons, and nothing more. These are people who've had many years experience in the legal field (a minority are peers or life peers, many, until recently, were infact law lords). It would be undemocratic to give them power.

What about the European parliament is undemocratic?

European Parliament has no real power. The power in the EU lies within the Commision and the Council. The European Parliament is the equivalent of the House of Lords in our Parliament.

The U.K. didn't even have a proper supreme court until last year.

Do correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe my Law teacher told me not to confuse the American and British Supreme court for a reason. They only share name, not powers. What i'm saying is, the UK Supreme Court is not the same as the American Supreme court in anything but name.

The UK Supreme court is a way of reinforcing the separation of powers.

 

[ayase]

As for the monarchy, how can a state be free if it's sovereign is always going to be a person who has attained that position by virtue of their bloodline? A monarchy is a grotesque stain on the idea of democracy and freedom. I know the Queen is a lovely, polite lady, but I honestly do not understand why so few Britons are republicans.

I think it's a stability thing. I'm not a monarchist by any means, but I do like the fact that it means our head of state is never political, serving instead as quite a positive ambassador for the nation. Having an elected President as head of state more or less guarantees that about half of the country will hate them at any one time.

We did get rid of them once and even lopped off the king's head, but then once we restored the monarchy we dug up Cromwell's corpse in order to hang it. The monarchy might be pretty bad, but I think that says that our experiment with republicanism proved even worse. Since they don't even wield any power it's no loss to democracy or freedom (you might wanna take a look at our Magna Carta if you're a fan of the Constitution) only a very small amount of money (the Royal Family cost each British citizen 69p a year last year). As Spyro says, the money they bring in from being a tourist attraction certainly results in a net gain. If anything, just look at them as a profitable British industry. One of few.