Skism wrote:And here you have why the EU likely won't work we are part of our separate nations for better or worse
I guess that's why you live in England and not the United Kingdom because obviously separate nations cannot unite. Oh, wait...
Four of them - well, three and a bit - have united after a history of conflict and war to form one nation. But, obviously, this can only work on the island and nowhere else.
Okay, it worked in China, in Italy, in Germany, in Spain, in France, in Japan... But these are all exceptions. Right?
and its more than just mentality really, its history, ruling style of government, genetics, language, abilities of each nation state and legal systems, and values
You just named everything that is defined by mentality or defines mentality.
Aside from genetics. And this point is ridiculous. With the massive immigration in Europe, you have no similar genetic pool in one country. Not even on your island - and not only thanks to the colonies. And even if you put that aside, you should know that the majority of the "native" English population descends from French and German ancestors. (Please note that I am only making this point because you brought genetics up. I do not see why "genetics" should prevent people from working together or having similar interests.)
And now back to arguments that are not as despicable.
History? Indeed. Europe shares a common history of interaction, peaceful and hostile. The history of no European power can be written or described without including the other European powers, small and large. They have influenced each other - be it in war or alliance - and thus formed each other and themselves. Yeah, that definitely separates them. But only if you do not want to see anything but the "We fought them back then" part. And seeing that France and Germany can cooperate this is not really a valid point.
Ruling style of government? So, democracy versus democracy? Yeah. That is obviously a difference. Where's the real problem here? All nations in Europe are ruled by a parliament and have some head of government with varying but in the end limited powers. (Despite some problems in former Soviet Republics with corruption of said system. But in theory, even they have that government structure.)
Language? Uh... English, despite being your language, is quite ubiquitous. It suffices for communication. This is a small barrier, yes, but it has already been taken. It had been long before the EU, in fact.
Abilities of each nation state? No clue what you mean with that.
Legal system? As Creshal noted, this affects only you and Ireland. And the Irish are apparently not nearly as "conflicted" as you.
Values? I told you before and I repeat it here: the values of Europe have been shaped in centuries, if not millennia, of shared history. They were distributed all over Europe due to the interaction and cooperation of philosophers all over the continent, be they in France, Italy, Germany or Britain. Even though the cultural peculiarities of the nations involved slightly changed the appearance of those values, they became and remained similar. Which is logical, because they were not formed in and by one nation alone, but by all of them. This is why media and politics usually speak of "Western" values and not of "German" or "British" values.
- all of which are the same in the states
Are they now? Surely, the Chinese, African, German, French, Mexican or Cuban immigrants all spoke English when they came to the USA. Surely, they were already familiar with the law system of the US
although most of them came from a country with a very different law system. Surely, they all shared the same history coming from different
continents. Surely, they shared the same values coming from different cultures - or are you going to claim that China, Africa and Europe share the same values? I am sure that
especially the Africans who came as slaves shared their values with their European masters.
And, again because you came up with it, I am also fairly certain that they all share their genetic pool because
obviously there is an US-gene just as there is a British-gene and a European-gene.
Sure, right?
The European states are only partially willing to see that - and some like the UK even less. That can be changed.
Ok so you think you have the right to change that hmm?
Where did I say that I intend to change it? I only said that mentality can be changed because it is nothing but a line of thought in your brain. And you can direct and change your thoughts.
But it's always nice to see how you begin misinterpreting other people's points as soon as they disagree with you...
how exactly are you going to do that? call another referendum? what happens when they say NO like last time?
Hm. I guess explaining things rationally instead of having propagandists create fear, bias and prejudice would be a good start. Interpret it according to your desire.
Whist US states do have different legislation they are perfectly allowed to have t so long as it is not unconstitutional, the EU does not really have this protection it realases a directive and all states are expected to do so with little leway arguably US states have more freedom than EU ones which is absurd!
Actually, it is quite similar. European law - like the constitution - is to be implemented. But aside from those laws the countries can implement whatever legislation they see fit unless it is against European law. And, in contrast to the US and like Creshal said, they can actually bring their case before the European Court of Justice and have proven or disproven that the law is correct.
Also, Europe can only pass a law if the nation states that constitute the EU have allowed the European institutions to exert legislative rights in the respective area. Hence, the states are not expected to "do so". They have
agreed and
decided to "do so".
And what are you going to do with the nearly 1/3 of the world that does use common law hmm?
Nobody ever even suggested that. All Creshal and I did was noting that the overwhelming majority of the world uses Civil law - except for Britain and its former colonies. Once again, you try to transform a statement made against your line of reasoning as a threat. And I am beginning to see that tendency of yours as insulting because due to it you present Creshal and me as intolerant, if not as warmongers. We are neither. And - in your terminology - "understand this".
Usenkos point was that you don't have the right to force us to give up common law
Hm. I interpreted Usenko's point as "that way of defining is not correct". If he meant what you said he meant, I have misunderstood. But I already noted above that nobody here demanded that.
and there is a large portion of us who will never yield on this point, understand this.
I can see that you do not want this. But I cannot see your proof that others or even "a large portion" agrees with you on that matter. And even if you found a statistic that said that "they" would not want to change their legal system, it would not proof it. Most people are unaware of the details of both legal systems and most people are averse to change. So, that vote against change would be biased by default, due to the way the question had to be asked and due to the general way of thinking. Not to mention a certain "tradition" factor.
Regardless, such a vote could not be ignored. Yet, nobody demanded that you changed your legal system. So far, implementing European legislation was and is possible without changing the legal system. Depending on the nature of an European federal state this might change. In that case, you can do as you please. Stay with your legal system for whatever advantages you think it yields (be they true or not, does not matter here) or remain part of Europe. Your choice. Nobody dictates it.
Oh we bringing up that history are we?
Uh, no. You brought up history. I quoted you doing so, actually. And you did again in the post I am quoting now.
perhaps (completing your argument for you) you meant Ireland and South Africa as two examples? both where failures of/wrong proirites and where caused by desperate actions and diplomatic failures. It was not intentional slaughter it was callous uncaring horrific negligence.
What now?²
Well, Creshal said it already.
This is ridiculing the victims of your "negligence". And nothing else.
Aside from what he said: if your rule was so generous, why did your former colonies decide to fight for independence? Because you treated them so well?
The UK oppressed them, just like any other colonial power, brought down any resistance with deadly force ... until they no longer had the necessary force, in terms of military and money.
Comparing China and Russia both murdered THEIR OWN PEOPLE and Russia killed 62 Million people during the communist regime and 55 Million of those where civilians. Compare China where 45 million died in the 4 year "great Leap Forward" and yes it does seem the level of despicable act does depend on the legal system after all Guantanamo bay Im assuming thats what you where referring to) is in Cuba not the USA whilst it is deplorable evil the Bush administration knew full well that the constitution would not allow it on US soil and in fact US judges have been trying to judge them anyway. (ive no idea when or if Obama is going to close it)
You know, the legal system does not define what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal. This is decided by the legislation - parliament, dictator or whatever else. In the US, murder is allowed, if you will - they call it "death penalty". In the UK, this is not allowed. Despite the two nations having the same legal system.
In France, Germany, Italy [...], the death penalty does not exist. Murder is not allowed. In China - it is. Despite those nations having the same legal system.
How can that be if - as you say - things like that depend on the legal system?
Do you actually believe the Russian laws sanction the murder of millions? Do you actually believe the Soviets
cared about that?
And your Guantanamo argument is - once again - ridiculous. The people who opened and operate Guantanamo in its current function are citizens of the United States. They are subject to the US law. Despite that, they conduct their illegal practices. The fact that their law - the one of the people - prohibits it does not seem to be of interest for them. Why should the Chinese or the Russians care about their laws if even the Americans - with all their talk of superior morale - do not?
What the legal system allows and prevents depends on the existing laws (which are not made by the judges), it depends on its power (which has to be guaranteed by the executive, which is in turn not controlled by the judges) and on its independence. None of these factors depends on the legal system itself.
Do you realize your entire argument applies back to civil law? I mean what would happen if sites in the EU wholesale rejected EU civil law?
Uh, the EU nation states would simply change the nature of the EU laws to fit into whatever law system they have chosen? After all, the nation states and their delegates are responsible for European legislation.
As a matter of fact, this should not even be a problem. The Irish - who have Common Law - and the British - who have Common Law - are apparently adhering to European law, which means that European legislation is compatible with Common Law.
Oops.
or how about states in Russia? "hey Putin we are rejecting all of your civil directives" bet that would go down a treat too in the Kremlin.
And if Russia used Common Law and the people would reject that, what would happen? Exactly. The same that would happen if they rejected the laws under a Civil Law legal system. It does not matter which system is used. If the people decide to disobey the law, the government can either change the law (as the people are the sovereign) or ignore the people and continue to oppress them.
Once again, your point is absurd.
Or how about China? very successful nation what happened the last time they campaged for democracy- they were slaughtered in Tienanmen square and every time they try to challenge corruption in local officials the police turn up and beat them - IF they are lucky.
Oh no! Good thing there is no corruption in Common Law India... oh, wait.
Good thing their police does not try to stop this ... oh wait.
Good thing there are no such problems in Common Law Pakistan, right? Their legislation is absolutely conform with yours, I guess?
Right?
It does not matter what legal system they use to administrate their democracy or enforce their dictatorship. The rules they implement matter - be they enforced under Common or Civil law.
One last thing consider the example of the USA they rejected British taxes British sovereignty, defeated British troops but kept Common law - and tell me it would have been inconvenient those revolutionaries where to a man bloody capable men who really knew what they where talking about and they wrote there own Constitution, could it have been hard for them to change common law? no harder than writing the constitution and arguably easier given that they had the lands of Spain later New France to the west and French troops assisted them (they could quite simply have asked the French for assistance for legalities, they did not)
... and? The Mexicans, the Brazilians, the Argentinians and several other nations kept Civil Law after having freed themselves of foreign oppression. What's so special about the US in this case? They all fought for their independence and won, writing their own constitutions in the process. And they all kept the legal system that had been established under the rule of their respective colonial power.
Why did they keep it? I named the reasons in my last post. It would have been a pointless exercise because the legal system is just that: a set of rules and concepts how law is made and judiciary works. There is no reason to change that system unless yours does not work at all or you view it as an obstacle to your plans. Obviously, most colonies did not. Be they former British or former French or former Spanish ones.
Also, the fact that the leaders of the campaign were capable of doing these things does not imply that all followers of it were capable of those things. And I guess they had better things to do than establishing a different legal system - and explaining it to their subjects - while they had to defend and build their nation.
Do you not think it extraordinary that men who rejected British authority so absolutely went far as to say "[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same."
As noted above. It was just more practical to do so than to set up a completely different legal system. The Americans had to work with the existing institutions, including the judges. If they had changed their legal system, they would have had to retrain all their judges and lawyers and everyone else involved with the legal system. They did neither have the time nor the resources.
And as I said, most colonies did the very same thing.
"The reliance on judicial opinion is a strength of common law systems, and is a significant contributor to the robust commercial systems in the United Kingdom and United States. Because there is reasonably precise guidance on almost every issue, parties (especially commercial parties) can predict whether a proposed course of action is likely to be lawful or unlawful. This ability to predict gives more freedom to come close to the boundaries of the law.[37] For example, many commercial contracts are more economically efficient, and create greater wealth, because the parties know ahead of time that the proposed arrangement, though perhaps close to the line, is almost certainly legal. Newspapers, taxpayer-funded entities with some religious affiliation, and political parties can obtain fairly clear guidance on the boundaries within which their freedom of expression rights apply."
Oh, really? I do not see the US' or UK's economy to be much more stable or powerful than the economies of Civil Law countries.
Aside from that, Civil Law and Common Law both provide a relatively clear set of legal boundaries. It is your acquaintance with the system that decides whether you are able to see those rules. In Common Law every previous case helps define and redefine the law. In Civil Law the legal boundaries are directly set in the respective law. It depends on the circumstances - e.g. existence of previous cases about the matter at hand - and the configuration of the law which system is preferable. And under different circumstances, different systems might be.
And there you have why people who live under common law will often not willingly choose to change - its nothing to do with convenience everything to do with clarity and with morality
Clarity? When every decision can contradict another? Well.
Morality? Creshal said it. The Nazis argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right" option into their verdicts. I do not think I have to explain how that ended. And morality is a rather ... fluid concept. Racial separation was once considered morally right - and legally right. Under Common Law. Is this the clarity and morality for which you favour Common Law? Or is it that "morality" is not the best measurement for law?
"In contrast, in non-common-law countries, and jurisdictions with very weak respect for precedent (example, the U.S. Patent Office), fine questions of law are redetermined anew each time they arise, making consistency and prediction more difficult, and procedures far more protracted than necessary because parties cannot rely on written statements of law as reliable guides. In jurisdictions that do not have a strong allegiance to a large body of precedent, parties have less a priori guidance and must often leave a bigger "safety margin" of unexploited opportunities, and final determinations are reached only after far larger expenditures on legal fees by the parties."
Actually, they usually are not "redetermined" all the time. Most of the time, the legislation itself offers a clear preference. Only in the case of really subtle details the law - being general and not based on every single case that was tried once in the past centuries - does not offer a clear definition. Then, it depends on the judge or the "judicial opinion" that your linked article commended before (within the boundaries of the legal system, of course - not that you misinterpret me again).
And as a matter of fact you can rely on "written statements of law as reliable guides" - they are called "legislative texts". You cannot rely on the outcome of similar previous cases, though, unless every significant part is the same and the laws have not changed since that case was tried. The latter applies to Common Law as well.
... and I do not want to transform this thread even more into a discussion about the finer points of law.
And larger legal fees mean of course more power to elites and rich people less power for people to challenge
Because paying a lawyer is so cheap in Britain or the US.
Notably, the aspect regarding the expenses only holds true if one of the parties tries to revoke the decision that has already been made. And another difference is that you do not have to bring a case before court all that often. That is because the law is not so dependent on singular cases but defined clearly in code law. Hence, lots of issues are solved without a process by simply looking up the legislative text.
The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention,
As Creshal noted, this allows judges to exert legislative rights - which they should not have. ("checks and balances" is a known term, I presume?) And Civil Law courts are not bound by precedent either. They are bound by the law, as they are the judiciary and not the legislature.
Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.
Reforming code law is possible, too. And it is not impossible to reform it gradually. The only issue is the political process - but, in Germany at least, the judiciary can call for an acceleration of this process via the Constitutional Court (if a law clashes with the constitution, that is). In General, said court can overrule any legislation that is against the constitution; especially those parts of the constitution that cannot be changed by the parliament.
Also, it is not impossible for judges in common law courts to exert their legislative rights against the "trends" of the country. Or in favour of one of the sides at court.
[citation needed]
Convenient.
Breaking up the EU now and going back to "my little country is better than your little country"-politics will only make things worse. The USA are a superpower, leading in research and having a decent standard of living. Would South East Florida have achieved anything?
Europe is and always has been interdependent.
.
That was the point, the "the US are special due to the traumatising war"-argument doesn't really hold up.
).
![[ external image ]](http://forum.egosoft.com/images/smiles/icon_wtf.gif){kind=link}