The anti-American dream

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Quill, in Great Britain the Monarch reigns, but Parliament rules, as I am sure you well know. The Royal Assent to a parliamentary Bill to enable it to become an Act is, technically possible...though no sovereign has refused to grant it since, I think, the beginning of the 18th century.

Under our present system of government were Queen Elizabeth to refuse to sign off a Bill presented by the governing party, the inevitable result would be a constitutional crisis.

And, of course,we actually had one of those with the abdication of Edward V111 in 1936.

You may not "buy it"...but it's our unwritten constitution - and it's not for sale.

It's not an unwritten constitution.  Parliament owes it's power to the fact that the German kings couldn't speak the language...and knew nothing about the country.  The Hanover's took a back seat to Parliament until they could figure out what was going on.  By the time they figured it out, Parliament had already assumed hegemony over the institution of the monarchy.

Sorry, Quill, but you are wrong. The fact that our constitution is not codified and does not, therefore, conform to the written constitutions of other states including the USA is immaterial. It is the only accepted Constitution of the United Kingdom, and is an unwritten one, formed by Acts of Parliament, court judgements and other conventions (source, The British Library).

And I'm afraid that the sausage-eating King George's  linguistic failings had very little to do with the powers of Parliament which had ably demonstrated those on January 30, 1649 - less than half a century previously - by rather brutally causing the head of Charles 1 to part company with the rest of his body.

It was a future salutory lesson to commoners, in spite of Charlie Two getting his revenge by having poor old Oliver Cromwell's skeleton dug up and his bonce stuck on a spike at the Tower.

Now, had Oliver accepted the offer by Parliament of the crown, how different things might have been.

Fred M. wrote:It is the only accepted Constitution of the United Kingdom, and is an unwritten one, formed by Acts of Parliament, court judgements and other conventions (source, The British Library).

I know that.  The point I am making is that it's a charade.  It can be anything you want it to be.  A Constitution is supposed to give you some structure and foreknowledge as to what to expect..

What you say about being unwritten is, we make it up as we go along.     That's not a Constitution.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:It is the only accepted Constitution of the United Kingdom, and is an unwritten one, formed by Acts of Parliament, court judgements and other conventions (source, The British Library).

I know that.  The point I am making is that it's a charade.  It can be anything you want it to be.  A Constitution is supposed to give you some structure and foreknowledge as to what to expect..

What you say about being unwritten is, we make it up as we go along.     That's not a Constitution.

Oh, dear God.....IT IS A CONSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT LIKE YOURS BECAUSE IT IS UNCODIFIED. IT IS BASED ON ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, APPEAL OR SUPREME COURT RULINGS AND OTHER CONVENTIONS.

IT CAN BE AMENDED ACCORDING TO CHANGES IN THE LAW.

WERE IT NOT SO, IT WOULD STILL BE "CONSTITUTIONAL" FOR US TO, FOR EXAMPLE, IMPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - OR EVEN TRANSPORT CONVICTED SHEEP STEALERS TO AUSTRALIA! WE DO NOT DO THAT ANY MORE. MAYBE YOU PEOPLE OVER THE POND SHOULD FOLLOW OUR EXAMPLE.

I really don't know how much more simple I can make the explanation.

Forget it Fred, he knows more about it than you do, after all he's a LAWYER !

He's just diverting away from the OP...

nicko wrote:Forget it Fred,  he knows more about it than you do,  after all he's a LAWYER !

I also have a PhD in British political history. I used to teach this stuff at university. The law degree and license is really negligible when it comes to political systems.

Brits have fooled themselves into believing they have a constitution, because everyone else has one. They have turned a deficit into an asset by claiming, our's is better...it's unwritten.

Did you ever hear that Hans Christian Andersen fable about the Emperor and his new clothes?

nicko wrote:Forget it Fred,  he knows more about it than you do,  after all he's a LAWYER !

The discussion got me uncharacteristically worked up....the Constitution was a key element of my final professional exams, and I once taught the subject to university journalism course undergrads, for heaven's sake.

I console myself by recalling what my tutor told me more than half a century ago: "It may be perfectly logical to us, but fuckin' foreigners will never be able to understand it."

HAHA...your tutor has the British response to everything down pat.

Don't worry about being worked up. You are always a gentleman around here. What field were your professional exams in? You always have such interesting stories.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Forget it Fred,  he knows more about it than you do,  after all he's a LAWYER !

I also have a PhD in British political history.  I used to teach this stuff at university.  The law degree and license is really negligible when it comes to political systems.

Brits have fooled themselves into believing they have a constitution, because everyone else has one.  They have turned a deficit into an asset by claiming, our's is better...it's unwritten.

Did you ever hear that Hans Christian Andersen fable about the Emperor and his new clothes?

Yes, I am not entirely uneducated. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual history of this country's unwritten constitution.

Most of us with a background in the subject are not so arrogant as to say that "ours is better"...we leave such arrogance to those who fail to understand that an unwritten constitution, built on the ancient history and traditions of the country that gave the world the Mother of Parliaments, is unique.

Original Quill wrote:HAHA...your tutor has the British response to everything down pat.  

Don't worry about being worked up.  You are always a gentleman around here.  What field were your professional exams in?  You always have such interesting stories.

They were the final examinations that all young journalists were required to take in the 1950s to about the 1970s, after which BA degrees in journalism became the main qualification for entry into the profession.(A retrogade step, in my opinion...some of my eventual undergrad students appeared incapable of stringing two sentences together!)

Previously, entry to journalism was primarily through indentured apprenticeship with a newspaper after gaining the required number of GCEs (now GCSEs). I always considered that to be the very best training.

My particular qualifications, after the requisite number of years' study, were firstly the National Proficiency Certificate and subsequently the more advanced National Diploma in Journalism.

I specialised in (media) law together with the British constitution, and also gained Royal Society of Arts English language and literature at advanced level while I was in the RAF, who were excellent in facilitating further part-time study for its servicemen.

Now, of course, I'm simply content to be a curmudgeonly old bugger...a subject in which I could, no doubt, quite easily gain a doctorate.

Haha...isn't that where we all end up?

Impressive credentials.  We don't have certification for journalism in this country, they are on their own after a degree in journalism or law.  Northwestern University (Chicago) and Columbia University are the preeminent journalism schools in the country.

After I finished law school to took a job in TV journalism, but it didn't last.  They wanted me only when political things came up.  Teaching and working as a prosecutor was more dependable.

Keep up the good stories.  I enjoy hearing about your past work, and the interesting things you have encountered.

Original Quill wrote:Haha...isn't that where we all end up?

Impressive credentials.  We don't have certification for journalism in this country, they are on their own after a degree in journalism or law.  Northwestern University (Chicago) and Columbia University are the preeminent journalism schools in the country.

After I finished law school to took a job in TV journalism, but it didn't last.  They wanted me only when political things came up.  Teaching and working as a prosecutor was more dependable.

Keep up the good stories.  I enjoy hearing about your past work, and the interesting things you have encountered.

Thanks, Quill.

As of a week ago I entered by 80th year, which is a pretty scary thought. But at least I can look back on my life with satisfaction in the knowledge that it has been a very interesting and eventful one, and that I am so very, very privileged - and lucky.

I am 78 today Fred, still 20 in mind, but sorry to say, not in body !

nicko wrote:I am 78 today Fred, still 20 in mind, but sorry to say, not in body !

Happy birthday, old boy.

I can't say that I feel on the verge of 80, and that heart op six months ago seems to have done the trick. I'm just back from my daily brisk walk...three miles in 62 minutes today. Quite chuffed!