It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Great Britain

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Great Britain is losing is freedoms under the leadership of Tony Blair because their country has no constitution. Are the people in the world being set up for a major disaster and about to be taken hostage because these leaders are crowning themselves the dictators of the world? Great Britain's presumption of innocence and trial by jury and their right to privacy are under serious attack. Is this the trend that is being set up for American citizens as well? How could there possibly be so many wars, diseases, chemicals sprayed in the skies, toxic poisons (MTBE) added to gasoline poisoning our waters and grounds and people. And what President has executed so many Executive Orders and by-passed the people declaring wars and spending whatever and ordering spying on citizens while Congress does nothing to stop it? Why has Congress allowed so many immigrants to pour into America? Why have so many American companies left our country? Why is Russia and China so quiet? Yes, Great Britain has a very serious problem. They have over 1,000,000 cameras spying on them right now! Is this what is going to happen to America because they people think it's for their protection? How stupid could so many people be in such a sophisticated age? We haven't been spied on for 200 years, so what's all the spying about without court approval or warrants as a necessity of law enforcement now? Are they coming after the "good" citizens ? Or are they really looking for the bad guys? After all, even with all their spying on the "good" citizens, they can't find the big gad guy, Al Queda. Isn't that who they should be trying to find with their cameras instead of grandma and grandpa talking politics in their living room or you and your friend debating the issues? And poor Pastor Rick talking about the Bible. Some leaders feel religion should be forbidden as well and pastors should go to jail. There's something wrong with this big picture if you take time to look at what's really going on. The government's big camera can't locate the big bad guys hiding in a cave, therefore, I find these new governmental behaviors terrifying and terrorizing not to the terrorists but to the people. Isn't this what Hitler did?




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I'd like to say that u don't know what you are talking about...Britain does have a constitution, and the U.S. constitution is closely modelled on on it. So, please get your facts straight before you start your debate. British Constitution



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Yeah but it's not a written constitution. There is the Magna Carta but no written constitution.

At the present parliament can make or unmake laws and it cannot be checked by any other branches of the system.

We don't have the 1st ammendement(for example) in writing ,we take it for granted that we have those rights. So a law can be made denying those free speech and free press, religion etc.

So the original argument is valid.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Its a bit complicated, Britain is currently comming into line with the impending European Union Constitution.

Yes here in Britain their are laws being proposed in parliment like the new terror laws, BUT they keep getting rejected by the House of Lords and TonyBlairs own MP's arnt supporting him. And if that wasnt enough to stop him, loads of Judges have also been writing letters in News Papers and thing like that.

Belive it or not, the public dont seem to be upset by what hes proposing, and infact allot of joe public are getting fed up with his proposals getting turned down by what they see as 'upper class liberalism'

So I agree if your point is things are heading to a more 'right wing' approach in the West.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DARKJEDIG
I'd like to say that u don't know what you are talking about...Britain does have a constitution, and the U.S. constitution is closely modelled on on it. So, please get your facts straight before you start your debate. British Constitution


From the site you linked to:

"The constitution is written down in a single document, and so is organised into a clear set of principles and rules. The most famous example of this is also the first – the US Constitution of 1787."

Maybe I misunderstood you... How is the US Constitution modelled on the British one if the US one is the first?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The British Constitution is what's known as "uncodified" which means you can't just pick up a book and read the whole constitution as one. However I think that you will find that there are many separate books kept in a particular building in London (I forget where exactly) that contain different pieces of information that help make the Constitution.

Tony Blair and his Government may not just introduce new legislation just like that anyway, first it has top be approved by the Commons, then the Lords (who have a habit of rejecting legislations!) and finally the Queen herself (However Her Maj is highly unlikely to reject any legislation as Parliament have the power to remove the monarchy with legislation as well!)

Judges are the main upholders of the Constitution in Court and they also help scrutinise any potential problems with the constitution through judgements that they pass.

Hope that helps.




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
he means its overall content and rights in regards to free speech ect ect

when the Americans broke away (boo hiss lol) they stated in the correspondance to the British Empire that they need to be free to be proper Englishmen, entitled to the rights of Englishmen living directly under the King, free of restrictive tax's and controls.

So they literally created a model of the British system at the time, but oddly based it around an earlier system befor the english civil war

i havnt prepared my answer but ill go into more detail later

President = the original powers Kings and Queens had in the UK befor our civil war restricted their power (for our own good)

and if u look at the senate and other aspects of your system, simply look up English pre civil war goverment structure and ull see what i mean.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
i know, lets make Britain have a written constitution so when we realise we made a mistake or left something out - we can keep revisiting and adding ammendments,



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Encarmine
So they literally created a model of the British system at the time, but oddly based it around an earlier system befor the english civil war


actually, much is based on the iroquois or haudenosaunee form of participatory democracy and their recorded constitution which is estimated to have been written between mid 1400's to early 1600's and possibly based on oral tradition dating to 1100 or 1142.

www.law.ou.edu...

[edit on 1-1-2006 by namehere]

[edit on 2-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDog
Yeah but it's not a written constitution. There is the Magna Carta but no written constitution.

At the present parliament can make or unmake laws and it cannot be checked by any other branches of the system.

We don't have the 1st ammendement(for example) in writing ,we take it for granted that we have those rights. So a law can be made denying those free speech and free press, religion etc.

So the original argument is valid.



No its not. Our constitution is unwritten but it is there. Magna Carta was the start. The Glorious revolution of 1690 was another, removing the Devine right of Kings and handing power to Parliament. The Monarchy along with the two Houses (the Commons and the Lords) balance and check each other. The Queen also has the right to absolve Parliament and seek new elections. English common law is used throughout the world including America as the basis of their legal systems with certain fundamentals implicit in common law.

It doesnt take Tony Blair.............

Paisley - British Agents Plotted To Murder Me

Monday 2nd January 2006

Ian Paisley has claimed that the Government was plotting to kill him at the height of the Troubles in 1975.

The DUP leader made the claim during interviews for a BBC television programme probing secret Government files that have been locked away for three decades.

Mr Paisley said a possible repeat of the loyalist workers' strike of 1974 led secret service agents to plot his murder a year later.

"In 1975, I was told I was the target for murder," he said.

"The warning came from a very senior source - someone I trusted.

"He told me an attempt may be made on my life and it would be a British agent who would do it.

"I made it known in certain circles that I had been warned.

"And, already under threat for years from the IRA, I made it my business to take extra precautions."

Mr Paisley told production staff making Cabinet Confidential, which will be broadcast on BBC1 on Wednesday at 10.40pm, that he had been shocked that the Government could consider killing him.

He said that he had been a "thorn in the side" of Harold Wilson's Government during the Ulster workers' strike.

A quote in the Cabinet files from Bernard Donoughue, a policy advisor to the then Prime Minister, said: "The Ulster workers' strike had a devastating effect on Prime Minister Harold Wilson and on Whitehall, as it was revealed that we did not have the power to control Northern Ireland.

"We could not have continued the (essential) services."

Mr Paisley's claim will not be included in Wednesday's programme, which is limited to the contents of newly-released Cabinet papers.

Other revelations from the papers are that Mr Paisley did not support internment without trial and how the Government rescued Harland and Wolff in a multi-million pound deal.

Ministers feared a "catastrophe" if 10,000 shipyard workers were thrown on to the dole, believing that this could ignite an already tension-filled situation, according to the files.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Where do you think America got the Bill of Rights from in the first place?
Makes you wonder.....should thank the British for that...or perhaps the former British subjects who wanted to be British and live like them, just before the Revolutionary war. There is a constitution of Great Britain, its just on many of the previous documents, not on just one single piece of paper.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I wouldnt quite call it 'Great' Britain anymore.

please check you u2us about one-line posts

[edit on 2-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The reason the English have no quote unquote written constitution (besides the Magna Carta), is because they function off common law. This is hard for those of us in America to understand because we use statutory law, i.e. actual written laws.
England's legal system is all case law, decisions in specific cases. (Which is why being a lawyer in england is basically who knows the best way around the library.) So since they use this system, a written, clearly defined constitution is not necessary, while in America, everything needs to be defined in law to the minutest(sp) detail.
To your main point, I do not think Tony Blair makes a very good candidate for dictator, and since iirc he is a product of a coalition parliament, I do not think he would be able to appeal to the passions of a particular group, being that he was born from compromise.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
That's because GB is ruled by the Queen and it is she who has the ultimate say. The Queen acts as a safety catch should the Govt ever go completely mad.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Are there seriously Americans out there who believe they are the only country with a constitution?! I seriously hope not.

You have to understand that european countries have been around ALOT longer than the United States. Over the years they have had so many amendments to their constitutions that they are nothing like the originals... nor are they one document any more.

Also, with so many countries joining together as one, splitting off into seperate countries, being conquered, conquering others, all happening over centuries... yeah, you can bet the constitutions arent going to be anything like their originals... they in fact wont be the originals, the originals are so old, they cant be handled. I mean, the Magna Carta is slowly crumbling itself... without being handled.

I understand that a big part of American nationalism is in your constitution. You are very proud of it, and rightly so. Like all free nations constitutions, its a very good constitution. And becuase of it, it seems alot of Americans associate the word constitution with United States, and assume nobody else has one.

Trust me, without a written declaration of your country, your country doesnt exist. Everyone has a constitution, or a form of it with a different name.


And no, the Queen is no longer a failsafe. She has no power, and remains only a figurehead of Britains history. The same has occured with Canada. We originally used the Queen of England as our failsafe... if she wasnt here (which was all the time) we use the governor general to act in place of the queen. The governor general can no longer prevent decisions from passing.

And the free countries other than the US have elected parlimentary systems so that the government CANNOT go 'mad' with power. A parlimentary government cannot essentially pass anything, unless the people of the country want it passed.

In comparison, the US government is closer to a 4 year elect dictatorship. The US trades off security of decision, for a fast decision approach. Its more effective, but mistakes and corruption are easier to come by.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by johnsky]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join