Britain finally gets a supreme court!

[Jakub]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

Soon they might get a constitution too. Maybe they won't be the world's first Orwellian state.

[cliffski]

I'm amused by this idea that a supreme court and a written constitution saves you from becoming a police state. How is that PATRIOT act and Guantanomo coming along?
Is the US govt still renaming torture to 'extraordinary rendition'?

[Miramon]

I'm amused by this idea that a supreme court and a written constitution saves you from becoming a police state. How is that PATRIOT act and Guantanomo coming along?
Is the US govt still renaming torture to 'extraordinary rendition'?

Not at all! It's no longer "extraordinary".

[unbongwah]

Is the US govt still renaming torture to 'extraordinary rendition'?
No, we renamed torture "enhanced interrogation techniques." We renamed kidnapping "extraordinary rendition."

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Soon they might get a constitution too.They have a constitution. They just define "constitution" differently than we do. We define it to mean a sort of charter document for the government. They define it as the whole body of law and tradition that "constitutes" their government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

[Larinson]

I love how the OP was obviously carefully thought about, and then constructed, to promote interesting debate about political change in Britain.

Oh, wait...

[Kalle]

And here I thought Jakub was in favour of police states.

[Jakub]

I love how the OP was obviously carefully thought about, and then constructed, to promote interesting debate about political change in Britain.

Oh, wait...
Oh, my post works on several different levels, if I have to explain them to you.

Britain is arguably the world's oldest current democracy (without actually being a democracy) or constitutional monarchy (without a constitution). It has slowly evolved from absolute monarchy into the prototypical western democratic state, inspiring nearly every country in Commonwealth and many beyond it. America, too, has its roots in British democratic traditions (with serious modification and some inspirations from the Romans as well as French philosophers). However, as previously pointed out, it is ironically one of the few without an actual constitution and until today did not even have national supreme court. Law and justice there are based as much on custom and slowly evolved old ways as on modern concepts.

Britain is also one of the first and definitely among the leaders of western nations to start clawing back civil rights (or, more accurately, not extend rights to protect from modern-age intrusions). In part out of fear of terrorism, in part because of Britain's (quiet) crime problem, and in part because of the nanny state.

Finally, the creation of the supreme court itself is symbolic of a strange movement in Britain where as the country has become liberalized (notably in the last two centuries) and the power of the Lords has been summarily reduced in stages (this being one of the last areas of influence of the old order), the country itself is drifting towards more state intervention, supplanting rather than removing the power of the old upper classes.



However, if I have to explain all that, then there's really no fucking point in a discussion and I quite frankly don't give enough of a shit. I already have my opinion on what this means to Britain, I don't care to influence anyone else's, so I make a farcical comment and hope to see other's reactions to the actual news rather than anything I'd have to add.

If I'd known everyone here was a bunch of nancypants who need to have everything explained to them and have a proper introduction before they're allowed to venture an opinion, why, I'd have to hurry since it's almost time for 5 o'clock tea.

[Jakub]

And here I thought Jakub was in favour of police states.
Not police states. Strong rule. Nowhere do I advocate an East German or Soviet-style state where one out of every three people is an informant. However, many states require strong central rule to maintain civil control due to their lack of development. This lack of development is typically a combination of a poorly educated populace and great economic uncertainty/disparity. I should also add the lack of democratic institutions and desire for democracy.

Of course, the strong rule has to be not only strong, but also at least moderately fair and be able to promote growth rather than stagnation within the stability. That is one of the difficulties, the other being the need for that rule to go away when the populace has matured enough to work in a democratic fashion.

[Wisbechlad]

I think it is a load of wank. The Law Lords were the supreme court (aka court of final appeal), renaming them changes nothing.

[foogla]

Law Lord sounds like a jrpg character class

[dogbert]

I think it is a load of wank. The Law Lords were the supreme court (aka court of final appeal), renaming them changes nothing.

I agree.

[Hunty]

Until today did not even have national supreme court. Law and justice there are based as much on custom and slowly evolved old ways as on modern concepts.

I think it is a load of wank. The Law Lords were the supreme court (aka court of final appeal), renaming them changes nothing.

Ding ding ding. I do get annoyed when the UK gets dragged into P&R on here. It's not because I'm a blinkered patriot or anything; there's a shitload of things that need addressing. It's because whenever it's done, it's usually without knowing a single thing about it. Or, even better, half-knowing and then sanctimoniously pretending to be some sort of expert, which is probably worse. I mean, I guess I could kick off a thread about some relatively minor legislative change in America and then oh-so-knowingly ask if it will stop them becoming a totalitarian military junta, but I don't, because I only know a bit about the systems and the context and I don't live there. So my opinion and faux-politsci wanknalysis would just be self-aggrandising, stupid, and smugly fucking reductive. Whoops.

So yeah, a goodish topic to discuss, but the tone is always the same and it's always a bit daft, so it's basically meaningless.

[Wisbechlad]

Plus, if you are a conservative (like what I am) then "Law and justice there are based as much on custom and slowly evolved old ways as on modern concepts" is a good thing. Entailed rights (based on evolving customs) of the common law >> conceptual rights based on statutes. They are much harder to overturn.

I trust my freedom much more with 12 of my peers, using their customs, over some idiot trying to modernise and streamline things. Read Hannah Arendt

The biggest problem I had with Blair is that he was a radical moderniser. I do not think it co-incidence that the clawing back of British freedoms has come hand in hand with this modernisation of the constitution.

[Mark Weston]

I think it is a load of wank. The Law Lords were the supreme court (aka court of final appeal), renaming them changes nothing.

Exactly, we always had a Supreme Court, all that's happened here is that the same judges applying the same laws under the same rules of procedure now have a cool "modern" title (along with a cool, modern, expensive new home). Personally I resent the arbitrary destruction of traditional forms like this. It's something that might make sense as part of a revision of the entire constitution, but as an act of constitutional tinkering just seems pointless and damaging.

[Glenn]

I'm amused by this idea that a supreme court and a written constitution saves you from becoming a police state. How is that PATRIOT act and Guantanomo coming along?Well, much better now that our Supreme Court interpreted our written Constitution and repeatedly whacked away on both, actually. So, now that you mention it, thank you Supreme Court and written Constitution for saving us from becoming a police state.

[Larinson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

Soon they might get a constitution too. Maybe they won't be the world's first Orwellian state.

Jolly good, so you agree this was a fairly silly way to introduce this subject then?

[Jakub]

Emphasis on the silly, yes. That people took it seriously, especially knowing how I post, well, that surprised me. My fault, but still worth having fun over :)

[Athryn]

I think their new emblem is pretty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/Supreme_court_crest_%28official%29.svg/212px-Supreme_court_crest_%28official%29.svg.png

So much cool symbolism!

[AlanT]

Good god, that's horrible.

[foogla]

haha an omega? wtf

[Athryn]

It's meant to symbolize and Omega (as in the end of appeals) and a pair of scales, or something. I still think it's pretty!

[Mordrak]

Not police states. Strong rule. Nowhere do I advocate an East German or Soviet-style state where one out of every three people is an informant. However, many states require strong central rule to maintain civil control due to their lack of development. This lack of development is typically a combination of a poorly educated populace and great economic uncertainty/disparity. I should also add the lack of democratic institutions and desire for democracy.

Of course, the strong rule has to be not only strong, but also at least moderately fair and be able to promote growth rather than stagnation within the stability. That is one of the difficulties, the other being the need for that rule to go away when the populace has matured enough to work in a democratic fashion.

So what percentage of the people should be informants?

[Miramon]

haha an omega? wtf

It's the ultimate court of appeals, ultimate = omega.

[Kalle]

I like the thistle.

[Miramon]

I like the thistle.

The fact that it's on the bottom beneath the Tudor rose symbolizes the continuing oppression of Scotland by England :)

[Kalle]

What does the other oppressed flower represent?

[dogbert]

Wales I'd imagine.

[Athryn]

What does the other oppressed flower represent?

There are 4 floral devices actually:

A Tudor rose, representing England, conjoined with the leaves of a leek, representing Wales; a flax for Northern Ireland; and a thistle, representing Scotland

[AlanT]

It should be a leek then, or a daffodil, and it doesn't really look like either.

EFB.