Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by Jota

I'd rather Scotland leaves the UK.

The democratic deficit in the UK union is much greater than it is for member countries in the European union. In the EU at least each country has a vote.

The UK political system is certainly imperfect, but the UK did provide a referendum for Scottish independence in 2014 -- in stark contrast to Spain/Catalonia or Belgium/Flanders. I do agree that that the order of magnitude difference in population and GDP between England and Scotland creates tremendous problems, so perhaps dissolution is inevitable.

[vinceprince]

See:
"The European court of human rights’ judgments that transformed British law"
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014...ed-british-law

If you look at these cases, you'll find a Court in Strasbourg with authority over the UK in a manner which no foreign court has over the US, Canada and Australia.

The ECHR is separate from the EU. There are no plans for the UK to leave and no democratic mandate for it. Though the level of awareness and debate was so poor especially in the tabloid press that many may have mistakenly thought they were voting to leave it.

There are many ECHR non EU signatories including Iceland, Turkey and Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member...ncil_of_Europe

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

The ECHR is separate from the EU. There are no plans for the UK to leave and no democratic mandate for it. Though the level of awareness and debate was so poor especially in the tabloid press that many may have mistakenly thought they were voting to leave it.

I'm far from expert in this, but my impression was that adherence to the ECHR and full implementation of its rulings was required by EU membership, indeed, its even been held out by the EU as a requirement for a trade deal. Is this not right?

Originally Posted by Brexit: Britain must stay in European Court of Human Rights if it wants a trade deal, Brussels to insist

Britain must agree to stay under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights if it wants a trade deal with the EU, Brussels will insist – in a move likely to trigger another row with right-wingers in the Conservative party.

A leaked draft European Parliament motion obtained by The Independent and due to be published in the coming weeks spells out a series of new demands from the body’s Brexit leadership for the next phase of talks – and threatens that it will use its veto if they are not met.

Stipulations include “that the UK continues to guarantee fundamental human rights as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights” as well as other demands to automatically implement new EU laws created after 2019, and a ban on “opt-outs” from Brexit for Britain’s car-making and financial services industries.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8096546.html

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I'm far from expert in this, but my impression was that adherence to the ECHR and full implementation of its rulings was required by EU membership, indeed, its even been held out by the EU as a requirement for a trade deal. Is this not right?

You have to be signed up to the ECHR to join the EU. But not the reverse.

The EU has free trade deals with many countries that are not signatories.
There maybe political/economic reasons for the trying to prevent the UK from leaving the ECHR but there is nothing legally preventing it.

Anyway as I said there is no democratic mandate for it and no chance of it getting through Parliament. It wasn't even part of the Tory's (or Labour's) manifesto.

[seany65]

Originally Posted by jacques22

Actually, it makes sense and it's very easy to understand why: think about the drivers carrying goods through the Channel tunnel. Free movement of labour allows them to drive from Spain, France or Italy to the UK with no red tape.

With Brexit, they will have to fill in forms, have their papers and goods checked. That's why there has been this suggestion to turn the M20 into a giant lorry park in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
From the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-trade): [/I]

Drivers going from one country to another and back during a delivery is not actually 'free movement of labour'. As far as I'm concerned, 'free movement of Labour' is the right to move to, live and work in another country without having to go through the usual emigration/immigration buggering about that can take quite a while with a lot of checking out of the person/people involved. Although I've never done such a thing so I don't know exactly what goes on when emigrating.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

They lost sovereignty and the paramount authority of the British Constitution

Hmm... where to start...

Unlike most countries, including all developed countries, the British do not have a formal written Constitution. They are legally under-developed, because they have no higher-ranking basic law that tells them what they stand for, what governments can do, and where they can be challenged. Everyone else has that, just not Britain

That leads to countless problems, but on topic, it's why they're in today's mess. They're in the process of having a minority government disrupt the entire nation to immense proportions, but without having a Constitution or a Constitutional Court where it could be challenged

No modern Constitution would allow such disruption on the basis of a 51.9% majority. It would require a "Constitution-changing majority" of at least 60% or more. But Britain doesn't have either a Constitution or such a majority. And that is is a big problem for them

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by palo5

But Britain doesn't have either a Constitution or such a majority. And that is is a big problem for them

I have to say none of the above about the lack of formal written constitution or the constant griping about UK politics actually bothers me one bit.

I was very happy in the 70's pre the EEC and I'll be just as happy once we eave the EU.
It was an arranged marriage organised by that duplicitous twat Ted Heath and the separation will be as messy as both parties want to make it.

If the EU are adamant they will allow no leeway and Britain's red lines are incompatible then we might just as well accept it will be a no deal departure then let's just leave and start looking forward.

I'm getting back to my films now as they are so much more like real life

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

If the EU are adamant they will allow no leeway and Britain's red lines are incompatible then we might just as well accept it will be a no deal departure then let's just leave and start looking forward.

They can accommodate you in some cases, see your rebate, vetos and opt-outs, but not on vital principles. That's why it's 27-1 and you can't win

Sooner or later, you will re-join. Everyone knows that

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by palo5

Hmm... where to start...

Unlike most countries, including all developed countries, the British do not have a formal written Constitution. They are legally under-developed, because they have no higher-ranking basic law that tells them what they stand for, what governments can do, and where they can be challenged. Everyone else has that, just not Britain

I agree that it's a problem and I certainly agree that it would have been better to set a threshold for referenda. However, although I would prefer a formal written constitution, it's important to remember it is not a panacea: after all, the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union had exemplary written constitutions.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by bjcb0

the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union had exemplary written constitutions.

Yes, the present German Constitution is based on the Weimar Constitution, which is a great success. I don't think anything excuses the British for not having one. do you?