Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realise that due to systemic racism, immigration policy and those who feel disenfranchised from the system for said reasons, makeup many of those who cannot (by law) and will not (by self exclusion), vote?
What does immigration policy have to do with it? Non-citizen immigrants (illegal and otherwise) have no right to vote. American citizens who are at least 18 years old and haven't had their rights revoked due to felony convictions all have the right to vote. If they choose not to vote, then that's their business, but it has nothing to do with racism, immigration or disenfranchisement -- it's their choice.
We don't have an elected second chamber, although the Lords are now mainly appointed by the Government rather than having hereditary seats, however they are still not elected by the people.
The need for reform of the second chamber is clearly evident and numerous Governments have promised change but never actually acted upon it, an elected chamber would be the ideal solution.
If the power of the Lords is to be further eroded, then it may become increasingly an irrelevance.
Other's have suggested more devolved powers to elected bodies in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and an elected UK Parliament coupled with a seperate elected English Chamber to vote on English issues thereby balancing Englands representation with the Parliaments and Assemblies in other parts of the Union and making the Union more Federal and devolved.
Seems to me what you're saying is that you really have only one elected chamber, House of Commons, similar to US House of Reps, not US Senate, but also deficient to HoR because it lacks separation of powers, i.e. government ministers do double duty as executive branch, and legislative branch officials which makes it more difficult for the HoC to perform oversight and accountability tasks on the executive branch.
The British media also have very good libel lawyers.
[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]If anything the judiciary should be under much closer scrutiny[/color] for some of the decisions they reach.These are mostly Oxbridge-educated highly-paid members of the Establishment.
It's perfectly acceptable for newspapers to point out that one of the three High Court judges who has delivered the judgement has also in the past been an active campaigner of European integration.He should not have been involved.
How would that work?
And only some decisions, like those you don't agree with......
Seems to me what you're saying is that you really have only one elected chamber, House of Commons, similar to US House of Reps, not US Senate, but also deficient to HoR because it lacks separation of powers, i.e. government ministers do double duty as executive branch, and legislative branch officials which makes it more difficult for the HoC to perform oversight and accountability tasks on the executive branch.
The House of Commons has 650 elected MP's from a wide array of political parties who scrutinise Government and Legislation must be passed by MP's before going on to the Lords to be further scrutinised and it should be noted that the Surpeme Court can hold the Government to account in relation to laws that are incompatable with our constitution, which although not codified exists in the form of centuries of acts and judicial precedent.
'The European Convention on Human Rights' (ECHR) is also incorporated in to British Law, and is a Bill of Rights which protects the citizen from abuses of power by authority. If I ever felt aggrieved by my treatment by the British Government and feel my rights have been violated then I can take them to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The ECHR being a seperate body to the EU and will remain as part of British Law, and the European Courts of Human Rights administer the Human Rights for 47 European Countries and over 800 million people, furthermore the British Government has lost a substantial number of cases at the Courts.
Contrast what, we have many of the same rights, indeed our rights go further. Under Article 2 of the ECHR for instance you have the right to life meaning the state can not put you to death.
Whilst Article 2 makes it abundantly clear in that the Right to Life is paramount and that to take a life must be a last resort and that force should be no more than absolutely necessary, whilst there is also a positive duty to protect life. Killings by the Police excused under America’s “reasonable belief†standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity†standards.
So police in Europe have a duty to try all means in order to de-esculate situations and to use non-lethal force for instance when someone has a knife rather than resort to firearms. Indeed far more training is aimed at de-esculation in many European countries than is apparent in the US.
The House of Commons has 650 elected MP's from a wide array of political parties who scrutinise Government and Legislation must be passed by MP's before going on to the Lords to be further scrutinised and it should be noted that the Surpeme Court can hold the Government to account in relation to laws that are incompatable with our constitution, which although not codified exists in the form of centuries of acts and judicial precedent.
'The European Convention on Human Rights' (ECHR) is also incorporated in to British Law, and is a Bill of Rights which protects the citizen from abuses of power by authority. If I ever felt aggrieved by my treatment by the British Government and feel my rights have been violated then I can take them to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The ECHR being a seperate body to the EU and will remain as part of British Law, and the European Courts of Human Rights administer the Human Rights for 47 European Countries and over 800 million people, furthermore the British Government has lost a substantial number of cases at the Courts.
Contrast what, we have many of the same rights, indeed our rights go further. Under Article 2 of the ECHR for instance you have the right to life meaning the state can not put you to death.
Whilst Article 2 makes it abundantly clear in that the Right to Life is paramount and that to take a life must be a last resort and that force should be no more than absolutely necessary, whilst there is also a positive duty to protect life. Killings by the Police excused under America’s “reasonable belief†standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity†standards.
So police in Europe have a duty to try all means in order to de-esculate situations and to use non-lethal force for instance when someone has a knife rather than resort to firearms. Indeed far more training is aimed at de-esculation in many European countries than is apparent in the US.
I'm having trouble figuring out what your references to the ECHR, and police killings in the US, have to do with the issue of separation of powers, and HoC oversight of UK government proposals and past actions.
Doesn't compute for me
I'm having trouble figuring out what your references to the ECHR, and police killings in the US, have to do with the issue of separation of powers, and HoC oversight of UK government proposals and past actions.
Doesn't compute for me
Firstly all legislation has to meet ECHR as well as UK Law, as for seperation of powers, the Government proposes the laws (the Executive), Parliament and indeed the House of Lords pases the Laws (the Legislator) and the Judiciary interprets the Law.
Just as your Supreme Court interprets Laws in relation to whether they are Constitutional, then so our Courts including the UK Supreme Court (Law Lords) interpret our laws and makes sure they do not conflict with existing Laws or Human Rights Legislation.
The UK Government can be challenged in the Courts on Constitutional issues such as Article 50 at the High Court and Supreme Court whilst in relation to Human Rights a further supra-national or international court exists in the form of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Furthermore there is a difference between Human Rights in ECHR Signatory Countries such as the UK and the US, for instance under Article 2 ECHR 'The Right to Life' the death penalty would not be permitted, and laws relating to the taking of life by police officers are also different. These are just examples of how the ECHR differs from the US System of Rights as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I am using this example due to the current controversy regarding US Police Shootings in the US and the Law, and to point out how fundamental rights under the ECHR give European Citizens greater protection from the state.
So under British laws which incoporates ECHR, there is a far higher legal standard in relation to the taking of life and indeed the death penalty is forbidden and Article 2 goes further stating that there is a positive duty for the state to protect life.
This is just one example of where our Government and Authorities must be careful not to come in to conflict with Human Rights that allow us to scrutinise the actions of Goverment and State Athorities.
Quote:
In the US, the only truly national deadly force behavioral mandates are set by the Supreme Court, which in 1989 deemed it constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably†perceive imminent and grave harm.
State laws regulating deadly force – in the 38 states where they exist – are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows, or more so.
By contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary†to achieve a lawful purpose.
Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief†standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity†standards.
For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe.
Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop
In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop.In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist.
For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force.
Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.
In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited.
In stark contrast, Finland and Norway require that police obtain permission from a superior officer, whenever possible, before shooting anyone.
Firstly all legislation has to meet ECHR as well as UK Law, as for seperation of powers, the Government proposes the laws (the Executive), Parliament and indeed the House of Lords pases the Laws (the Legislator) and the Judiciary interprets the Law.
That's a tautology. UK legislation is UK law.
I still don't understand your reference to US police killings.
My point on the separation of powers is that because executive branch government ministers get to shape the proposed legislation, and also vote on it, they have the capacity to promote legislation that is sub optimal.
If ministers were prohibited from voting on government proposed legislation, but not on opposition proposed, more care would likely be taken in drafting the legislation, the better to get it passed.
Legislation is proposed by Government, it does not become Law until the legislation is passed by both Houses in Parliament, it is only then Law and subject to interpretation by the Judiciary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
I still don't understand your reference to US police killings.
I was merely pointing out the different standards that apply in relation to Human Rights legislation and Police Shootings which is currently a topic of some controversy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
My point on the separation of powers is that because executive branch government ministers get to shape the proposed legislation, and also vote on it, they have the capacity to promote legislation that is sub optimal.
If ministers were prohibited from voting on government proposed legislation, but not on opposition proposed, more care would likely be taken in drafting the legislation, the better to get it passed.
The Government is only a small part of what constitutes Parliament, most decisions are taken by the Prime Minister Theresa May and her Cabinet of say 30 Ministers, on top of this there are Junior Ministers who are usually come under the control of Ministers relating to a particular department. In terms of these Ministers and the Junior Ministers they are usually advised on issues by Career Civil Servants or Reports.
So the vast majority of MP's are actually what are called backbenchers in that they are not part of the Government and have no portfolio, whilst many also belong to opposition parties. These are the vast majority of MP'S who vote on legislation in order to pass laws.
How succesful a Government is at passing Legislation is usually down to the size of it's Parliamentary majority, which is how many of the 650 elected MP's that sit in the House of Commons belong to that particular political party. The political party with a majority forming a Government.
"The government's powers include general executive and statutory powers, delegated legislation, and numerous powers of appointment and patronage. However, some powerful officials and bodies, (e.g. HM judges, local authorities, and the Charity Commissions) are legally more or less independent of the government, and government powers are legally limited to those retained by the Crown under Common Law or granted and limited by Act of Parliament, and are subject to European Human Rights Legislation and also currently to EU Law. Both substantive and procedural limitations are enforceable in the Courts by judicial review"
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-08-2016 at 03:17 PM..
I don't see why the UK must subjugate their rule of law and borders to be allowed to do business with the EU
Thus, how does this court ruling change any of that?
I don't see why the UK must subjugate their rule of law and borders to be allowed to do business with the EU
Thus, how does this court ruling change any of that?
The EU has developed four freedoms which you must adhere to in relation to free movement of workers, free movement of capital, free movement of services and free movement of capital. The EU states that if you do not adhere to all these principles you can not trade on a parity, however we can still trade with the EU and have access to EU Markets, just as the US does.
As for the four principles, a number of EU Countries don't even adhere to them all, so it's a bit hypocritical asking the UK to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
