Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by palo5

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?

Yes, tradition, it's not however a necessity and I've never lost any sleep over it, I'm starting on another movie now.

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by palo5

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?

In part, that's correct, but much of the present German Constitution was also determined by the UK, USA and France at the London Six-Power Conference in 1948: it does not have a single source. Ironically the German Constitution owes a great deal to British lawyers.

As I've written above, I would prefer the UK to adopt a written constitution, but there would still be many who would argue that continuous parliamentary government since 1688, with a marked lack of bloody revolution or dictatorship, implies that it's not too terrible, although it does have a tendency to keep outmoded components long past their sell-by-date (such as the House of Lords or, indeed, the Crown).

[haroldeye]

bjcb0 -If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

bjcb0 -If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

I agree: our system has worked too well to be stupid, even if it does sometimes keep some things best abandoned (particularly the House of Lords!). It's probably time for me to return to movies too now -- or, at least, my fantasy BBC Four documentary "Alicia Rhodes and Lucy Worsley on the Glorious Revolution".

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by seany65

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.

I'm afraid to say that you're in denial. Here's the official definition of free movement of labour by the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457&langId=en
You clearly focused on the right to look for a job, work and reside in another EU country, but you forgot the line about working in an EU country without needing a work permit. Even if those drivers are in another EU country just for an hour or two, technically they are working. It doesn't matter whether they are working for months or just hours, it is still work according to the law.

If you travel to the United States, Japan or any other third country, you must have noticed that when you arrive, you are asked to fill in a form asking whether you are coming as a tourist or for business purposes. I can tell you that U.S. customs officials will kick you out if you are telling them that you will attend a seminar for a few hours or get trained for a couple of days on a tourist visa.

Once Brexit becomes effective and the UK becomes a third country, you will realise that things you took for granted were the by-product of EU membership. Brexit means that British lorries will need new licences and registration certificates, otherwise they won't be able to deliver across Europe:
"As the EU will no longer recognise UK-issued driving licences after Brexit, British drivers who hope to travel in Europe may require new licences and registration certificates.
Without a recognised licence, British travellers will no longer be able to hire cars or take out insurance in Europe. This is especially problematic for commercial vehicles who cross the border at Dover as they will be required to seek a separate vehicle registration when travelling abroad."
(The full article: https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2018/04/0...ry-deliveries/)

There's another article which is even more dramatic, claiming that most British lorries will be barred from Europe in the event of a no-deal Brexit
"James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year."
"Currently, an operator licence for a lorry issued by the UK is effectively valid across the European Union on account of Britain's single market membership. That means a British trucker with a valid licence can drive goods from Dover to Calais and all the way across Europe. The number of available licenses is unlimited."
(The full article: http://uk.businessinsider.com/britis...r-warns-2018-6)

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bjcb0

As I've written above, I would prefer the UK to adopt a written constitution, but there would still be many who would argue that continuous parliamentary government since 1688, with a marked lack of bloody revolution or dictatorship, implies that it's not too terrible, although it does have a tendency to keep outmoded components long past their sell-by-date (such as the House of Lords or, indeed, the Crown).

Come to the United States, and look at a President who thinks he's King, and you may find that Walter Bagehot's defense of a politically impotent monarchy is a better deal than you might have thought.

The value of the Crown is what she prevents a Prime Minister from aspiring to.

Its not a guarantee-- Mussolini got on well enough despite Vittorio Emmanuele III-- but at least in the UK it does seem to reduce the PM to a more manageable level of arrogance.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by palo5

Hmm... where to start...

Unlike most countries, including all developed countries, the British do not have a formal written Constitution.

The "British Constitution" is an accumulation of precedent, statute and caselaw. You're quite right that its not "written" in the sense of one document-- but British jurists know what it is. It seems to work tolerably well, and when it comes to rights, antiquity is a virtue.

Many new Constitutions promise all sorts of things in fine blackletter print, but the social mechanisms that turn promises into deeds are as much custom and expectation as they are text.

Originally Posted by palo5

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

That's a problem with plebiscites. Parliamentary systems, whether Westminster or Washington style Republican, don't easily accommodate this. Many of the Western States of the US have a big role for citizens initiatives, and it causes no end of problems.

The US doesn't permit it at a Federal level, but we have a lot of these at the State level, and you end up with problems such as California's awkward Prop-13 property tax landscape.

Plainly the UK erred in allowing referenda, they're not the right way to do things.

Canada has a similar sort of problem with Quebec's every-decade-and a half, more or less independence votes. Just on the averages, sooner or later one of these refererenda will pass, so how often should you have them?

Clement Attlee had it about right, I think, calling them a "tool of dictators and demagogues".

A very good essay about them, here:
"The Referendum charade"
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/th...endum-charade/

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by jacques22

I'm afraid to say that you're in denial. Here's the official definition of free movement of labour by the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457&langId=en
You clearly focused on the right to look for a job, work and reside in another EU country, but you forgot the line about working in an EU country without needing a work permit. Even if those drivers are in another EU country just for an hour or two, technically they are working. It doesn't matter whether they are working for months or just hours, it is still work according to the law.

If you travel to the United States, Japan or any other third country, you must have noticed that when you arrive, you are asked to fill in a form asking whether you are coming as a tourist or for business purposes. I can tell you that U.S. customs officials will kick you out if you are telling them that you will attend a seminar for a few hours or get trained for a couple of days on a tourist visa.

Once Brexit becomes effective and the UK becomes a third country, you will realise that things you took for granted were the by-product of EU membership. Brexit means that British lorries will need new licences and registration certificates, otherwise they won't be able to deliver across Europe:
"As the EU will no longer recognise UK-issued driving licences after Brexit, British drivers who hope to travel in Europe may require new licences and registration certificates.
Without a recognised licence, British travellers will no longer be able to hire cars or take out insurance in Europe. This is especially problematic for commercial vehicles who cross the border at Dover as they will be required to seek a separate vehicle registration when travelling abroad."
(The full article: https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2018/04/0...ry-deliveries/)

There's another article which is even more dramatic, claiming that most British lorries will be barred from Europe in the event of a no-deal Brexit
"James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year."
"Currently, an operator licence for a lorry issued by the UK is effectively valid across the European Union on account of Britain's single market membership. That means a British trucker with a valid licence can drive goods from Dover to Calais and all the way across Europe. The number of available licenses is unlimited."
(The full article: http://uk.businessinsider.com/britis...r-warns-2018-6)

And what happened before Britain joined the EU-were goods transported in each direction by magic? This whole argument avoids the issue that there was a 'before Britain joined the EU' period-and things still worked then-not perhaps as smoothly as currently-and certainly with more paperwork-but the only issue will be-assuming Brexit occurs-is how obstructing the EU will choose to be-and perhaps would do well to recall that barriers are not unidirectional....as Herr Trump is finding out to his displeasure.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Come to the United States, and look at a President who thinks he's King, and you may find that Walter Bagehot's defense of a politically impotent monarchy is a better deal than you might have thought.

The value of the Crown is what she prevents a Prime Minister from aspiring to.

Its not a guarantee-- Mussolini got on well enough despite Vittorio Emmanuele III-- but at least in the UK it does seem to reduce the PM to a more manageable level of arrogance.

The PM is the Crown and Commander-in-Chief not the Queen.
He/she exercises the power of the crown. It is the power of the crown that is important not actually wearing one.
The King/Queen can do nothing at all about that, Bagehot was way out of date even at the time he was writing.

The PM exercises the Executive Prerogative Power of the Crown with no checks or balances in foreign policy and War.

They can freely take us into illegal wars (Iraq) and disasters like Suez.
No vote in Parliament needed at all, as May's recent Syria bombing recently showed again.

A leader like Blair large majority can also pass any law they like in Parliament - no restrictions whatsoever, unlike Trump who is reined in by Congress/Senate, and the Constitution/Courts.

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Come to the United States, and look at a President who thinks he's King, and you may find that Walter Bagehot's defense of a politically impotent monarchy is a better deal than you might have thought.

The value of the Crown is what she prevents a Prime Minister from aspiring to.

Its not a guarantee-- Mussolini got on well enough despite Vittorio Emmanuele III-- but at least in the UK it does seem to reduce the PM to a more manageable level of arrogance.

I agree that the US presidency has become ever less restrained by the checks and balances that I have always seen as greatly superior to the UK system -- a PM with a solid Parliamentary majority is an almost unrestricted autocrat, able to create law and fundamentally alter the UK in a single term. You're also correct that the point of the Crown is to remove the monarchical trappings from the PM, and that's good too. My feeling is that other constitutional monarchies in Europe seem to do that with more checks and balances on the PM (e.g. the Netherlands and the Scandinavians) and fewer anachronistic remnants too.

I live in France for about three months every year and the French attitude to Macron is very difficult to gauge. The French almost encourage the President to behave royally (Macron is sometimes described as the Sun King or Jupiter, not always negatively), but then react against it and remember republican sentiments. It's hard to say whether Macron is more constrained than a US president, though.