Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Nova Cyberia]

That's a moronic concept. Parliament, with the swipe of a pen, can eliminate your rights.

This is why your police threaten people with criminal investigations for making fun of a drug dealer's haircut on the internet.

I would argue that certain common law rights, such as habeas corpus, are beyond the authority of Parliament to totally abolish. But more importantly, the freedoms of a people are ultimately guaranteed by fostering a culture that values freedom, constitutional government and democracy; such a culture still exists in the UK although it is being progressively undermined. We've survived longer as a democratic society than any other existing democracy of notable size because of this. Words on paper ultimately do nothing to protect people's freedom- how many tinpot dictatorships around the world have constitutions that nominally protect basic rights that are trampled on by those countries' governments daily? The deification of a document, the way that the US deifies its (frankly flawed) constitution, is absurd and one of the things the UK avoids by not having a codified constitution.

Attempts are being made to undermine our freedom of speech as well. The difference is that our First Amendment shields us and it's effectively impossible at this point in American politics to ever amend it. We don't have to rely on the benevolence of those who govern us to protect our rights.

[Hanafuridake]

It's a joke about his ever-increasing autocratic behavior.

Let's bring back the (Eastern) Roman Empire, while we're at it.

I'd prefer just to give all of that to the Mongolians.

[Novus America]

That’s rich coming from three bloke who picked a pew forum opinion piece on who was more free, as if that isn’t the definition of cherry picking. Prove I cherry pick, I provided two very thorough analysis on the point.

Look, here’s a 2009 paper discussing how we produce quantifiable analysis in qualitative areas, and improve the methodologies for our indexes, and more, the authors don’t suggest scrapping the indexes, but refining them. This is all part of the review process, we produce a modal, it works but not cleanly, we refine it, it works, cleaner than before, but not perfect. We refine, thanks to a paper like this, the means by which we produce an international index. That’s what it is all about - that’s how progress in these area is made a i don’t cherry pick, you just refuse to understand this means of improvement by which I can then pick a data interpretation with confidence.



Who gives a shit if people think their free. Is a slave that doesn’t know he’s a slave, a slave? Yes. So why would you ask a person who doesn’t know if he’s a slave, if he thinks he’s free? He’ll say yes. While remaining a slave. See how reality isn’t reflected in human thoughts? That actually is subjective, which seeing as you’re apparently a wise guy when it comes to spotting subjectivity, I find your sudden use of it insulting.

I mean, how can you even say to me with a straight face that people’s perception of freedom is an objective means of determine freedom? Give a student £200 and he’ll think it’s a lot, give a millionaire £200 and he’ll wipe his arse with it. Yet notice the £200 is identical in both scenarios but the perception of the quantifiable amount is different.

The audacity, no, no, the stupidity, is blowing my god damn mind.



That is for “sure”... he says lacking relevant authority to back up his claims again!



Thank God freedom is more than guns and speech. Is a man in chains who can fire a gun at Will and shout his mouth around a slave? Yes. But he has freedom of speech and a weapon. Maybe freedom is more than what you perceive it to be, which is ironic as per my above statement.



Oh look, there’s another claim, Will it be anchored to the ground with evidence? or float away like the others... oh, there it goes.



Hey! Everyone! A classic example of bait and switch. This whole discussions exists around two things: is the UK more free (yes)? do written constitutions reduce nationalistic sympathy in a meaningful way, to the point where they could of prolonged 20th century empires (no)?

It’s not my fault if to you a constitution is de facto attached to the qualities of federalism. Suddenly equating a written constitution with a federation is something of your own minds doing no written constitution requires a federation - that’s something you’ve talked on. As your next point about the Dutch makes painfully clear.



Of look! The thing you equated constitution and federalism you immediately refuted by pointing out the Dutch are not a federation yet have a constitution. I mean for God sake, how do you refute yourself in the same line!

I’ve made painfully clear this discussion is not about federalism but about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalism. If your mind has tagged federalism and constitution together then that’s you own doing, but it’s still not proof for your claim. See how that works?



Did I claim you did? I even gave you the hypothesis you were supposed to prove: “does a written cosbituion reduce netaionalism in a meaningful way so a stop prolong the 20th century empires”

Did I say: “does a constitution obliterate nationalism and would of made the 20th century empires eternal!”

No, I didn’t. I just wanted a statistical measure for your claim. Still waiting.

Neither did I. So this is a red herring.

Oh look it’s my running theme - like literally word for word. it’s almost as if a written constitution is actually irrelevant in comparison to the proper implementation of law across a country - something I noted very early on.

Look, a brand new dynamic to all this and it’s bullshit, because constitutional monarchies occupy more of the top 10 free countries than federations do.

I bet you could. I so guarantee you could. But this is irrelevant. Because I don’t care about the type of government, but the proper implementation of government.

My running theme.

I mean you just proved my point. Okay you do not care if people feel free (although what then is freedom?), or if people have freedom of speech or freedom to bear arms.
See? We are at an impasse here. Our views of freedom cannot be reconciled.

I no way did I prove your point. “Feeling” is not an objective measure of freedom. That is how we experience freedom, but our experiences - as I pointed out, are deceptive. Which is why we cannot rely on our feeling to determine what is actually true. That is subjective. Americans feel more free, but is that because they are, or because they’re conditioned to believe they live in the freest country?

I proved that international indexes were thorough, and that we could have agreed upon meanings for the topics of discussion.

Those indexes make the UK less tyrannical and more free than the US.

And now you brought up monarchy. Umm okay.
Again you think things are mutually exclusive when they are not.

I barely bought up Monarchy, this is a distraction.

You do realize a Constitutional Federation can be a Constitutional monarchy/crowned Republic right?!

Being a monarchy (of the constitutional crowned Republic type) and a Constitutional federation are fully compatible. See Australia and Canada.

No way you were thinking of constitutional monarchies as part of your federalist dream, most constitutional monarchies are unitary states, not federations.

My point was that a constitution and federation are not a 1:1 ratio. Where a constitution exists a federation does not follow.

Yes the implementation is important. But this is the key point here. You cannot implement constitutional federalism without a written Constitution!
That is the point. Constitutional federalism is not something an unwritten constitution can do well, regardless of how it is implemented.

I don’t care about this, I care about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalistic sentiment. Besides it seems that there is little support for your ideas anyway.

But really this is getting pointless. You can keep your Constitution on your Island as an anomaly.

Not my problem because it is very rarely practiced elsewhere.

And a more free and open government we’ll have too.

No, I agree some indexes (again the one you provided speaks of rule of law, not personal freedoms) rank the UK higher. But also protections and guarantees matter, our freedoms cannot be so easily be taken away. That matters. A whole lot. Again as I said to OT those guarantees are important.
What guarantees does Scotland have that you will not unilaterally change the relationship?

That is where federalism ties in, guarantees.
This is where federalism differs from simple decentralization.

And your own source says Federalism can reduce nationalist sentiment if applied properly.
Yes there is not a one to one ratio. You can have a written Constitution without being a federation. But a federation without a written Constitution delineating powers cannot work.

And yes I made it clear I was explicitly thinking of monarchy. I said earlier our Constitution would not fit you, and that Canada and Australia probably would fit better.

And Canada has some parts of the Constitution not clearly written in the one document, although the federal system is outlined in a written Constitution, that is the central document. Again by necessity.

[Novus America]

I would argue that certain common law rights, such as habeas corpus, are beyond the authority of Parliament to totally abolish. But more importantly, the freedoms of a people are ultimately guaranteed by fostering a culture that values freedom, constitutional government and democracy; such a culture still exists in the UK although it is being progressively undermined. We've survived longer as a democratic society than any other existing democracy of notable size because of this. Words on paper ultimately do nothing to protect people's freedom- how many tinpot dictatorships around the world have constitutions that nominally protect basic rights that are trampled on by those countries' governments daily? The deification of a document, the way that the US deifies its (frankly flawed) constitution, is absurd and one of the things the UK avoids by not having a codified constitution.

Attempts are being made to undermine our freedom of speech as well. The difference is that our First Amendment shields us and it's effectively impossible at this point in American politics to ever amend it. We don't have to rely on the benevolence of those who govern us to protect our rights.

Exactly. I do not trust Congress. Which is why like our congress restricted from messing with certain rights.

[Novus America]

That's a moronic concept. Parliament, with the swipe of a pen, can eliminate your rights.

This is why your police threaten people with criminal investigations for making fun of a drug dealer's haircut on the internet.

I would argue that certain common law rights, such as habeas corpus, are beyond the authority of Parliament to totally abolish. But more importantly, the freedoms of a people are ultimately guaranteed by fostering a culture that values freedom, constitutional government and democracy; such a culture still exists in the UK although it is being progressively undermined. We've survived longer as a democratic society than any other existing democracy of notable size because of this. Words on paper ultimately do nothing to protect people's freedom- how many tinpot dictatorships around the world have constitutions that nominally protect basic rights that are trampled on by those countries' governments daily? The deification of a document, the way that the US deifies its (frankly flawed) constitution, is absurd and one of the things the UK avoids by not having a codified constitution.

So then you are saying Parliamentary sovereignty can and is restricted.
And you joined the EU, despite the EU not recognizing Parliamentary sovereignty and prohibiting you from practicing it in certain things.

I think the difference is partially we might deify our Constitution to some degree (but it can be changed, just not easily, and not unilaterally by the federal legislature alone) while you deify Parliamentary sovereignty, putting near complete faith in your Parliament.

Although I fail to see how the EU and parliamentary sovereignty can be reconciled.

Or how long term Union with Scotland can be reconciled the fact Scotland does not like the idea and seems to be beginning to reject it.

But yes unrestricted Parliamentary sovereignty and a federation are incompatible. So you are saying you would actually oppose an Imperial Federation. You could not have both.
But then we run into the EU again.

You joined a international union with a federal structure that does not recognize or allow unlimited Parliamentary sovereignty. This is rather confusing TBH.

[Salus Maior]

So, I've been reading a bit on the Epstein case, and of course it's disturbing shit.

One thing in particular that has stand out to me, is that one of the British Royals (Prince Andrew, one of Elizabeth's sons) is implicated as taking part in the pedophilia ring. Now, these are still just allegations but it brings something to mind that's worth discussing.

So, Monarchists and tolerators of monarchists, what should be done in the case where a member of the ruling family has crossed both secular and moral law to the extreme? (actually, come to think of it, this could be applied to any powerful, integral member of government. After all, a lot of American politicians are also implicated)

I of course believe justice should be upheld across the board, and that the the crown and royal blood is not a tool of immunity but a high, divinely gifted responsibility. And to violate such a responsibility and duty requires harsh punishment.

[Novus America]

So, I've been reading a bit on the Epstein case, and of course it's disturbing shit.

One thing in particular that has stand out to me, is that one of the British Royals (Prince Andrew, one of Elizabeth's sons) is implicated as taking part in the pedophilia ring. Now, these are still just allegations but it brings something to mind that's worth discussing.

So, Monarchists and tolerators of monarchists, what should be done in the case where a member of the ruling family has crossed both secular and moral law to the extreme? (actually, come to think of it, this could be applied to any powerful, integral member of government. After all, a lot of American politicians are also implicated)

I of course believe justice should be upheld across the board, and that the the crown and royal blood is not a tool of immunity but a high, divinely gifted responsibility. And to violate such a responsibility and duty requires harsh punishment.

While I can tolerate Constitutional monarchy other places than here, the monarchy should never be above the law.
Our politicians can be punished and removed from office.

Would not a monarchy require some system by which the monarch could be impeached and removed?

[Salus Maior]

While I can tolerate Constitutional monarchy other places than here, the monarchy should never be above the law.
Our politicians can be punished and removed from office.

Would not a monarchy require some system by which the monarch could be impeached and removed?

Arguably there already exists a precedent of monarchs being impeached in a sense in the last couple centuries.

In the British family itself, the nation pressured Edward VIII to abdicate in favor of his brother (a much better man and king). Likewise in Austria the Emperor preceding Franz Josef was made to abdicate in the face of revolution.

[Novus America]

On the UK/US bickering I look at it this way.
1) We learn by arguing, by criticizing and getting a response we learn. And by being criticized and trying to defend we learn.
2) Arguing and even criticizing does not require hatred. Even if it sometimes gets nasty and heated. Who here has not argued, sometimes heatedly with their spouse, significant other, siblings or parents? Brothers can argue, metaphorically or even literally wrestle. Sometimes heatedly. But are still brothers.
3) I actually like the UK. It is a good ally and and great place to visit.
So why am I so critical then? See 2.
Also yes I think your laws and constitution are flawed, and your politicians are useless hacks.
But I also think the US laws and yes, even our constitution are flawed, and our politicians are useless hacks. This does not mean I hate the US.

[Novus America]

While I can tolerate Constitutional monarchy other places than here, the monarchy should never be above the law.
Our politicians can be punished and removed from office.

Would not a monarchy require some system by which the monarch could be impeached and removed?

Arguably there already exists a precedent of monarchs being impeached in a sense in the last couple centuries.

In the British family itself, the nation pressured Edward VIII to abdicate in favor of his brother (a much better man and king). Likewise in Austria the Emperor preceding Franz Josef was made to abdicate in the face of revolution.

True, but my concern here is that if it is done in an informal, irregular manner, is that really in accordance with the law? I think the law should clearly spell out what the procedure for doing so is.

[Hanafuridake]

So, Monarchists and tolerators of monarchists, what should be done in the case where a member of the ruling family has crossed both secular and moral law to the extreme? (actually, come to think of it, this could be applied to any powerful, integral member of government. After all, a lot of American politicians are also implicated)

There's historical precedent for making a cruel or violent ruler step down, that could possibly be used in situations like these. The member of the royal family could be subjected to house arrest if their crimes were prosecuted in court. This ensures that members of the royal household are not untouchable by the law, and avoids sacrificing royal dignity by putting a member of the family in a common prison.

[Salus Maior]

Arguably there already exists a precedent of monarchs being impeached in a sense in the last couple centuries.

In the British family itself, the nation pressured Edward VIII to abdicate in favor of his brother (a much better man and king). Likewise in Austria the Emperor preceding Franz Josef was made to abdicate in the face of revolution.

True, but my concern here is that if it is done in an informal, irregular manner, is that really in accordance with the law? I think the law should clearly spell out what the procedure for doing so is.

Well, considering the British constitution is based on tradition rather than word-of-the-law like the American constitution, the precedent that the nation made a monarch step down in favor of a better relative is substantial and quite possibly binding.

Of course, Tyrannia would know more about that.

[Lower Nubia]

I no way did I prove your point. “Feeling” is not an objective measure of freedom. That is how we experience freedom, but our experiences - as I pointed out, are deceptive. Which is why we cannot rely on our feeling to determine what is actually true. That is subjective. Americans feel more free, but is that because they are, or because they’re conditioned to believe they live in the freest country?

I proved that international indexes were thorough, and that we could have agreed upon meanings for the topics of discussion.

Those indexes make the UK less tyrannical and more free than the US.

I barely bought up Monarchy, this is a distraction.

No way you were thinking of constitutional monarchies as part of your federalist dream, most constitutional monarchies are unitary states, not federations.

My point was that a constitution and federation are not a 1:1 ratio. Where a constitution exists a federation does not follow.

I don’t care about this, I care about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalistic sentiment. Besides it seems that there is little support for your ideas anyway.

And a more free and open government we’ll have too.

No, I agree some indexes (again the one you provided speaks of rule of law, not personal freedoms) rank the UK higher.

We’re getting somewhere. Actually it does do personal freedoms, if you read the definitions for each of the factors it covers personal freedoms on an individual level.

But also protections and guarantees matter, our freedoms cannot be so easily be taken away.

But even in the rankings of constraints of government power, the UK ranks better. So our freedoms are more guaranteed than your own. The UK system divests a lot of power in the parliament, but that parliament is beholden to other constraints of the system.

As the report I provided showed, the UK scored much better in constraint of powers, and does so in all international index’s I’ve seen.

That matters. A whole lot. Again as I said to OT those guarantees are important.

Which is why the UK ranks highly in constraints on government power, above the US.

What guarantees does Scotland have that you will not unilaterally change the relationship?

You’d need approval from the Scottish Parliament.

That is where federalism ties in, guarantees.
This is where federalism differs from simple decentralization.

But it’s not a necessity, or a guarantee.

And your own source says Federalism can reduce nationalist sentiment if applied properly.

Which is a quality of any government - when it is done properly, it reduces unrest. The point however, is not about federations, but whether a written constitution reduces nationalistic sentiment in a meaningful way. That paper reveals it makes no difference, a constitution of clearly communicated rights has no effect on the nationalistic sentiment, it is rather, the quality of the governance which is important.

Which means a federation would of failed to unify the Empires of the 20th century - way more important and crucial factors existed in the collapse than unitary versus federal systems having any effect.

Yes there is not a one to one ratio. You can have a written Constitution without being a federation. But a federation without a written Constitution delineating powers cannot work.

I doubt that highly.

And yes I made it clear I was explicitly thinking of monarchy. I said earlier our Constitution would not fit you, and that Canada and Australia probably would fit better.

You said in a completely unrelated section that a federation would work in those systems, there’s no reason to extrapolate from that section, when in a different section you talk almost exclusively of federalism of the US. Escpecially seeing as those are the countries we are comparing.

And Canada has some parts of the Constitution not clearly written in the one document, although the federal system is outlined in a written Constitution, that is the central document. Again by necessity.

[/quote]

Not by necessity. A federation can function by using an English system, it would seem, nothing about the English system is diametrically at odds with the governance of a federation. Indeed a definition of federalism (defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status), doesn’t talk of a constitution as a necessity, but as the most likely outcome.

[Novus America]

I no way did I prove your point. “Feeling” is not an objective measure of freedom. That is how we experience freedom, but our experiences - as I pointed out, are deceptive. Which is why we cannot rely on our feeling to determine what is actually true. That is subjective. Americans feel more free, but is that because they are, or because they’re conditioned to believe they live in the freest country?

I proved that international indexes were thorough, and that we could have agreed upon meanings for the topics of discussion.

Those indexes make the UK less tyrannical and more free than the US.

I barely bought up Monarchy, this is a distraction.

No way you were thinking of constitutional monarchies as part of your federalist dream, most constitutional monarchies are unitary states, not federations.

My point was that a constitution and federation are not a 1:1 ratio. Where a constitution exists a federation does not follow.

I don’t care about this, I care about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalistic sentiment. Besides it seems that there is little support for your ideas anyway.

And a more free and open government we’ll have too.

No, I agree some indexes (again the one you provided speaks of rule of law, not personal freedoms) rank the UK higher.

We’re getting somewhere. Actually it does do personal freedoms, if you read the definitions for each of the factors it covers personal freedoms on an individual level.

But also protections and guarantees matter, our freedoms cannot be so easily be taken away.

But even in the rankings of constraints of government power, the UK ranks better. So our freedoms are more guaranteed than your own. The UK system divests a lot of power in the parliament, but that parliament is beholden to other constraints of the system.

As the report I provided showed, the UK scored much better in constraint of powers, and does so in all international index’s I’ve seen.

That matters. A whole lot. Again as I said to OT those guarantees are important.

Which is why the UK ranks highly in constraints on government power, above the US.

What guarantees does Scotland have that you will not unilaterally change the relationship?

You’d need approval from the Scottish Parliament.

That is where federalism ties in, guarantees.
This is where federalism differs from simple decentralization.

But it’s not a necessity, or a guarantee.

And your own source says Federalism can reduce nationalist sentiment if applied properly.

Which is a quality of any government - when it is done properly, it reduces unrest. The point however, is not about federations, but whether a written constitution reduces nationalistic sentiment in a meaningful way. That paper reveals it makes no difference, a constitution of clearly communicated rights has no effect on the nationalistic sentiment, it is rather, the quality of the governance which is important.

Which means a federation would of failed to unify the Empires of the 20th century - way more important and crucial factors existed in the collapse than unitary versus federal systems having any effect.

Yes there is not a one to one ratio. You can have a written Constitution without being a federation. But a federation without a written Constitution delineating powers cannot work.

I doubt that highly.

And yes I made it clear I was explicitly thinking of monarchy. I said earlier our Constitution would not fit you, and that Canada and Australia probably would fit better.

You said in a completely unrelated section that a federation would work in those systems, there’s no reason to extrapolate from that section, when in a different section you talk almost exclusively of federalism of the US. Escpecially seeing as those are the countries we are comparing.

And Canada has some parts of the Constitution not clearly written in the one document, although the federal system is outlined in a written Constitution, that is the central document. Again by necessity.

Not by necessity. A federation can function by using an English system, it would seem, nothing about the English system is diametrically at odds with the governance of a federation. Indeed a definition of federalism (defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status), doesn’t talk of a constitution as a necessity, but as the most likely outcome.[/quote]

See one issue is I am getting conflicting information here.
You and OT are claiming completely different things about the UK.

If absolute Parliamentary sovereignty exists, your claims are wrong.
If not then you actually have a written Constitution that limits your government.

And a Federation CANNOT co/exist with absolute Parliamentary sovereignty!

You have to clearly delineate powers, in a document the federal government cannot unilaterally change!
Yes a Parliamentary System with a crowned Republic typ Constitutional monarchy can be an effective federation. But there still has to be a constitutional document laying out the conditions of the federation and restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty.

Of course you actually are part of a federal system with a written Constitution. The EU.
Which rejects Parliamentary sovereignty.
Of course the EU Constitution is several documents, but still written documents the EU government cannot unilaterally change. That clearly delineate powers.

[Novus America]

True, but my concern here is that if it is done in an informal, irregular manner, is that really in accordance with the law? I think the law should clearly spell out what the procedure for doing so is.

Well, considering the British constitution is based on tradition rather than word-of-the-law like the American constitution, the precedent that the nation made a monarch step down in favor of a better relative is substantial and quite possibly binding.

Of course, Tyrannia would know more about that.

And I must admit I am uncomfortable with such concepts.
The law should be written so I know what is legal and what is not, and so I know what to do if the law is broken.

[Jolthig]

Well, considering the British constitution is based on tradition rather than word-of-the-law like the American constitution, the precedent that the nation made a monarch step down in favor of a better relative is substantial and quite possibly binding.

Of course, Tyrannia would know more about that.

And I must admit I am uncomfortable with such concepts.
The law should be written so I know what is legal and what is not, and so I know what to do if the law is broken.

This really should go for any jurisprudence.

[Salus Maior]

Well, considering the British constitution is based on tradition rather than word-of-the-law like the American constitution, the precedent that the nation made a monarch step down in favor of a better relative is substantial and quite possibly binding.

Of course, Tyrannia would know more about that.

And I must admit I am uncomfortable with such concepts.
The law should be written so I know what is legal and what is not, and so I know what to do if the law is broken.

I agree that, as I'm also an American, I also prefer a written constitution. But hey, if it works for them it works for them.

[Jolthig]

And I must admit I am uncomfortable with such concepts.
The law should be written so I know what is legal and what is not, and so I know what to do if the law is broken.

I agree that, as I'm also an American, I also prefer a written constitution. But hey, if it works for them it works for them.

I tend to agree with this as well. As long as any country has a consistent jurisprudence, they should be fine.

[Lower Nubia]

I no way did I prove your point. “Feeling” is not an objective measure of freedom. That is how we experience freedom, but our experiences - as I pointed out, are deceptive. Which is why we cannot rely on our feeling to determine what is actually true. That is subjective. Americans feel more free, but is that because they are, or because they’re conditioned to believe they live in the freest country?

I proved that international indexes were thorough, and that we could have agreed upon meanings for the topics of discussion.

Those indexes make the UK less tyrannical and more free than the US.

I barely bought up Monarchy, this is a distraction.

No way you were thinking of constitutional monarchies as part of your federalist dream, most constitutional monarchies are unitary states, not federations.

My point was that a constitution and federation are not a 1:1 ratio. Where a constitution exists a federation does not follow.

I don’t care about this, I care about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalistic sentiment. Besides it seems that there is little support for your ideas anyway.

And a more free and open government we’ll have too.

No, I agree some indexes (again the one you provided speaks of rule of law, not personal freedoms) rank the UK higher.

We’re getting somewhere. Actually it does do personal freedoms, if you read the definitions for each of the factors it covers personal freedoms on an individual level.

But also protections and guarantees matter, our freedoms cannot be so easily be taken away.

But even in the rankings of constraints of government power, the UK ranks better. So our freedoms are more guaranteed than your own. The UK system divests a lot of power in the parliament, but that parliament is beholden to other constraints of the system.

As the report I provided showed, the UK scored much better in constraint of powers, and does so in all international index’s I’ve seen.

That matters. A whole lot. Again as I said to OT those guarantees are important.

Which is why the UK ranks highly in constraints on government power, above the US.

What guarantees does Scotland have that you will not unilaterally change the relationship?

You’d need approval from the Scottish Parliament.

That is where federalism ties in, guarantees.
This is where federalism differs from simple decentralization.

But it’s not a necessity, or a guarantee.

And your own source says Federalism can reduce nationalist sentiment if applied properly.

Which is a quality of any government - when it is done properly, it reduces unrest. The point however, is not about federations, but whether a written constitution reduces nationalistic sentiment in a meaningful way. That paper reveals it makes no difference, a constitution of clearly communicated rights has no effect on the nationalistic sentiment, it is rather, the quality of the governance which is important.

Which means a federation would of failed to unify the Empires of the 20th century - way more important and crucial factors existed in the collapse than unitary versus federal systems having any effect.

Yes there is not a one to one ratio. You can have a written Constitution without being a federation. But a federation without a written Constitution delineating powers cannot work.

I doubt that highly.

And yes I made it clear I was explicitly thinking of monarchy. I said earlier our Constitution would not fit you, and that Canada and Australia probably would fit better.

You said in a completely unrelated section that a federation would work in those systems, there’s no reason to extrapolate from that section, when in a different section you talk almost exclusively of federalism of the US. Escpecially seeing as those are the countries we are comparing.

And Canada has some parts of the Constitution not clearly written in the one document, although the federal system is outlined in a written Constitution, that is the central document. Again by necessity.

Not by necessity. A federation can function by using an English system, it would seem, nothing about the English system is diametrically at odds with the governance of a federation. Indeed a definition of federalism (defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status), doesn’t talk of a constitution as a necessity, but as the most likely outcome.

See one issue is I am getting conflicting information here.
You an OT are claiming completely different things about the UK.

If absolute Parliamentary sovereignty exists, your claims are wrong.

What claims?

If not then you actually have a written Constitution that limits your government.

We have different branches which limit and constrain power, this is in law, but not in a constitution.

You can have constraint of power and not need a constitution. Ergo, the contradiction does not exist, and the possibilities you prescribe do not adequately cover the situation.

And a Federation CANNOT co exist with absolute Parliamentary sovereignty!

I know, I’m referring to having an ‘un-written’ constitution - you-know, the whole point of contention in this conversation.

You have to clearly delineate powers, in a document the federal government cannot unilaterally change!

Which needn’t be in a constitution. Just as the Scottish Act 2016 delineates powers and cannot be unilaterally changed without the Scottish Parliament.

Yes a Parliamentary System with a crowned Republic typ Constitutional monarchy can be an effective federation. But there still has to be a constitutional document laying out the conditions of the federation and restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty.

Which could be done with a corpus of law, rather than a constitution. The closest example of this is Canada, whose constitution is really just the corpus of law presented in one document - which is a constitution, while also not being one.

[Novus America]

I no way did I prove your point. “Feeling” is not an objective measure of freedom. That is how we experience freedom, but our experiences - as I pointed out, are deceptive. Which is why we cannot rely on our feeling to determine what is actually true. That is subjective. Americans feel more free, but is that because they are, or because they’re conditioned to believe they live in the freest country?

I proved that international indexes were thorough, and that we could have agreed upon meanings for the topics of discussion.

Those indexes make the UK less tyrannical and more free than the US.

I barely bought up Monarchy, this is a distraction.

No way you were thinking of constitutional monarchies as part of your federalist dream, most constitutional monarchies are unitary states, not federations.

My point was that a constitution and federation are not a 1:1 ratio. Where a constitution exists a federation does not follow.

I don’t care about this, I care about whether a written constitution reduces in a meaningful way nationalistic sentiment. Besides it seems that there is little support for your ideas anyway.

And a more free and open government we’ll have too.



We’re getting somewhere. Actually it does do personal freedoms, if you read the definitions for each of the factors it covers personal freedoms on an individual level.



But even in the rankings of constraints of government power, the UK ranks better. So our freedoms are more guaranteed than your own. The UK system divests a lot of power in the parliament, but that parliament is beholden to other constraints of the system.

As the report I provided showed, the UK scored much better in constraint of powers, and does so in all international index’s I’ve seen.



Which is why the UK ranks highly in constraints on government power, above the US.



You’d need approval from the Scottish Parliament.



But it’s not a necessity, or a guarantee.



Which is a quality of any government - when it is done properly, it reduces unrest. The point however, is not about federations, but whether a written constitution reduces nationalistic sentiment in a meaningful way. That paper reveals it makes no difference, a constitution of clearly communicated rights has no effect on the nationalistic sentiment, it is rather, the quality of the governance which is important.

Which means a federation would of failed to unify the Empires of the 20th century - way more important and crucial factors existed in the collapse than unitary versus federal systems having any effect.



I doubt that highly.



You said in a completely unrelated section that a federation would work in those systems, there’s no reason to extrapolate from that section, when in a different section you talk almost exclusively of federalism of the US. Escpecially seeing as those are the countries we are comparing.



Not by necessity. A federation can function by using an English system, it would seem, nothing about the English system is diametrically at odds with the governance of a federation. Indeed a definition of federalism (defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status), doesn’t talk of a constitution as a necessity, but as the most likely outcome.

See one issue is I am getting conflicting information here.
You an OT are claiming completely different things about the UK.

If absolute Parliamentary sovereignty exists, your claims are wrong.

What claims?

If not then you actually have a written Constitution that limits your government.

We have different branches which limit and constrain power, this is in law, but not in a constitution.

You can have constraint of power and not need a constitution. Ergo, the contradiction does not exist, and the possibilities you prescribe do not adequately cover the situation.

And a Federation CANNOT co exist with absolute Parliamentary sovereignty!

I know, I’m referring to having an ‘un-written’ constitution - you-know, the whole point of contention in this conversation.

You have to clearly delineate powers, in a document the federal government cannot unilaterally change!

Which needn’t be in a constitution. Just as the Scottish Act 2016 delineates powers and cannot be unilaterally changed without the Scottish Parliament.

Yes a Parliamentary System with a crowned Republic typ Constitutional monarchy can be an effective federation. But there still has to be a constitutional document laying out the conditions of the federation and restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty.

Which could be done with a corpus of law, rather than a constitution. The closest example of this is Canada, whose constitution is really just the corpus of law presented in one document - which is a constitution, while also not being one.

But what I am getting now is you do have written Constitution that your government cannot change unilaterally. The Scottish Act is part of your Constitution.

And so absolute Parliamentary sovereignty does not exist. But you and OT are in disagreement there.

Also you never addressed the EU thing.

But now we are getting into semantics. A corpus of law that lays out the basics of government and that cannot be unilaterally changed by Parliament? That is a Constitution.

But see this is why I think your system is flawed. Have you read your Constitution?
How do you know what is in it?

The beat way to understand a government is to understand the constitution.
Ours has one authoritative version. It is easy to read and accessible.

But your system is really hard for an outsider to learn about.

[The Hindustani State]

Happy independence day to the largest democracy on Earth!

[Jolthig]

Happy independence day to the largest democracy on Earth!

Happy Independence Day to you guys and Pakistan.

[The Hindustani State]

Happy independence day to the largest democracy on Earth!

Happy Independence Day to you guys and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s was yesterday

[Lower Nubia]

What claims?

We have different branches which limit and constrain power, this is in law, but not in a constitution.

You can have constraint of power and not need a constitution. Ergo, the contradiction does not exist, and the possibilities you prescribe do not adequately cover the situation.

I know, I’m referring to having an ‘un-written’ constitution - you-know, the whole point of contention in this conversation.

Which needn’t be in a constitution. Just as the Scottish Act 2016 delineates powers and cannot be unilaterally changed without the Scottish Parliament.

Which could be done with a corpus of law, rather than a constitution. The closest example of this is Canada, whose constitution is really just the corpus of law presented in one document - which is a constitution, while also not being one.

But what I am getting now is you do have written Constitution that your government cannot change unilaterally. The Scottish Act is part of your Constitution.

The Scottish Parliament act is part of the traditions and enacted law of the parliament. It can change and be revoked, it requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament through a referendum.

And so absolute Parliamentary sovereignty does not exist. But you and OT are in disagreement there.

I’m not OT’s keeper, as far as I’m aware the UK system does have supreme authority in the parliament, because it is by the parliament that the Scottish Parliament was given the powers of devolution. It is simply that it cannot be revoked without consent of the area governed by the devolved parliament. It is given power and enacted by the supreme authority of the parliament in legislation.

Also you never addressed the EU thing.

The EU is a supranational organisation, it is currently a confederation, not a federation which is more complicated than a single “constitution” the articles of the EU are plentiful, and overarching from a vast degree of prior treaties.

It’s not relevant.

But now we are getting into semantics. A corpus of law that lays out the basics of government and that cannot be unilaterally changed by Parliament? That is a Constitution.

Except the definition of a constitution is: “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.”

The UK’s isn’t organised into a body of fundamental principles, it is organised by a series of traditions, case law, and is really decided by courts, and conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. There are a number of precedents that the parliament follows: it has sovereignty to do so, it has the rule of law and thus to legislate only in legal matters - even concerning human rights, it is a democracy, and
Is conducted beyond the borders of the Uk.

In other words, the US has a single principled document which is the constitution.

The UK has a single history, which has grown principles, which is the constitution. It is the history that provides the precedent for law. This, of course, cannot be codified - thus we rely on case law, tradition, and the courts to produce law.

A fundamental difference.

But see this is why I think your system is flawed. Have you read your Constitution?
How do you know what is in it?

I google human rights act 1998. Done.

The beat way to understand a government is to understand the constitution.

No, the best way is to understand is through the historical developments of the systems your government now employs to effectively execute her power.

A constitution doesn’t tell you how your system rules, it tells you want your system has ruled on.

Ergo, the UK system maintains the historical component of it’s origin to power, to learn history is to learn the privileges of the parliament - to understand the means by which she has authority. Thus to understand history, is to understand the British Parliament. Which after reading books on the Anglican reformation, I now do understand certain things, even though that developed over 400 years ago.

Ours has one authoritative version. It is easy to read and accessible.

The CDT has taught me that no one can read a religious document without interpretation to some degree, the same applies for legal documents. You can google, get the pdf, and start reading, but that doesn’t mean you’ll understand what that documents means, it’s extent, it’s reflection on you.

But your system is really hard for an outsider to learn about.

So is America’s. But complexity is as much a defence as simplicity, but neither is complexity a destroyer of usefulness.

[Turbofolkia]

So, I've been reading a bit on the Epstein case, and of course it's disturbing shit.

One thing in particular that has stand out to me, is that one of the British Royals (Prince Andrew, one of Elizabeth's sons) is implicated as taking part in the pedophilia ring. Now, these are still just allegations but it brings something to mind that's worth discussing.

So, Monarchists and tolerators of monarchists, what should be done in the case where a member of the ruling family has crossed both secular and moral law to the extreme? (actually, come to think of it, this could be applied to any powerful, integral member of government. After all, a lot of American politicians are also implicated)

I of course believe justice should be upheld across the board, and that the the crown and royal blood is not a tool of immunity but a high, divinely gifted responsibility. And to violate such a responsibility and duty requires harsh punishment.

While I can tolerate Constitutional monarchy other places than here, the monarchy should never be above the law.
Our politicians can be punished and removed from office.

Would not a monarchy require some system by which the monarch could be impeached and removed?

To answer yours and Salus Major’s questions directly, there is nothing stopping members of the royal family (there is one obvious exception) from being tried and convicted for any crime. In 2001 Princess Anne was convicted and fined 400 pounds for speeding.

The obvious exception is of course the Queen. Non lawyers will try to tell you that the reason for this is because of “sovereign immunity” but they are wrong. It is not so much that the the Queen is above the law rather she is the law. Criminal proceedings cannot be brought against the Queen because the Queen is the source of all justice. She is the head of the police force and the lead prosecutor in all criminal cases. That is why criminal cases are stylised as the The Crown (or R for Regina) against X.

However under the Crown Proceedings Act civil proceedings may be brought against the Crown in its public capacity (e.g. suing a government department).

In regards to impeachment of a monarch, this is not possible in the way impeachment of a president is. However in specific circumstances the Regency Act empowers certain ministers to declare a monarch unfit to govern and appoint a regent in their place. I guess that is a bit like the 25th Amendment. Parliament may also choose to do declare a republic if they wish to remove a monarch.

I’m not trying to give my opinion on this one way or the other, just trying to explain what the law is. I hope that clears things up.