BREXIT

[nightlight]

No.

Judges don't make law....sorry.

Common law is a Trojan Horse.

I don’t think you understand what the common wealth of Nations is

Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems. ... Based on English common law.
-------

Commonwealth gives birth to Common Law.

As I understand it, the US system is based on English common law.

I was under the impression that commonwealth states have their judges make law...under common law.

US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't.

[Robin Hood]

I don’t think you understand what the common wealth of Nations is

Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems. ... Based on English common law.
-------

Commonwealth gives birth to Common Law.

As I understand it, the US system is based on English common law.

I was under the impression that commonwealth states have their judges make law...under common law.

US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't.

I don't think that is true.
US law is based on precedent.
Think of Roe vs Wade.

[nightlight]

Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems. ... Based on English common law.
-------

Commonwealth gives birth to Common Law.

As I understand it, the US system is based on English common law.

I was under the impression that commonwealth states have their judges make law...under common law.

US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't.

I don't think that is true.
US law is based on precedent.
Think of Roe vs Wade.

Your right. I misunderstood.

It's only applied to civil.

[lundbaek]

"US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't." Absolutely! But they get away with it.

The Congress hold the lawmaking responsibility, and because it is a vested power, they cannot legally give it away. And, btw and fyi, those legislative powers are limited to the powers specifically spelled out in Article One, Section Eight.

Regrettably, both the president and the supreme court have usurped much of that authority, But that don't make it constitutional.

[gkearney]

I was under the impression that commonwealth states have their judges make law...under common law.

US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't.

You have things very confused here. In Commonwealth Nations, be they Commonwealth Realms where the queen is the head of state (The UK, Canada, Australia, etc.) or nations that are republics with in the Commonwealth of Nations (India, South Africa, Kenya, etc.) or even in Commonwealth Monarchies such as Malaysia and Tonga, laws are created by the legislative bodies of the nation. Judges do not, or as you say should not create law. In a few monarchies the monarch can still create laws but this is rare these days. The courts can and do interpret the law based on precedent or the doctrine of stare decisis (the matter is decided).

Be that as it may English Common Law is the foundation of the legal systems in many, but not all Commonwealth nations as it is in the United States and all but one of the U.S. states. The sole exception in the U.S. is Louisiana whose legal code originated with the Napoleonic (French) Codes. The same is true for Canada (except Quebec) and most other English speaking nations. English Common Law, along with the rights enumerated in the Magna Carta are the foundations upon which the laws and government of the United States and it Constitution were built, those seeking to defend the US constitution would be well advised to learn the principals of English Common Law and the Magna Carta which arouse from it.

Now on to the Commonwealth of Nations, which really has nothing to do with if your nation uses English Common Law or not. The Commonwealth is a free association of nations with historic, linguistic, or cultural ties to the United Kingdom. It promotes free trade and cultural exchange between its members.

Unlike the EU the Commonwealth DOES NOT in any way attempt to govern its member nations in any fashion. It is this difference which likely lead to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, that and the fact that the British never thought of themselves as European to start with.

About the only thing the Commonwealth can do is to suspend a member who is acting badly. If the United States were to, in some fashion, become associated with the Commonwealth it would instantly make the Commonwealth of Nations the world's largest and riches trading block. Think of it for a moment; a trading block with the UK, the United States, Canada, India, South Africa and a host of other developed and developing nations as members. If the UK played its hand right they likely could pick up nations on the fringes of the EU as well like Sweden and Denmark. While most Commonwealth members have some kind of ties to the United Kingdom not all do and of course the Commonwealth is free to admit who ever they like.

So if you want a bulwark against both the EU and China, expand the Commonwealth as much as is possible. How about inviting Japan while we are at it?

[nightlight]

Lol hence all these licenses,regulation etc

Lol " let's make law...we just won't write it out, so we can say we dont make law"

Should we not vote on our Judges?

[Dave62]

Hey! You wanna buy something from us now?

I think that's the plan... so long as you buy some of our stuff.

I'll swap you a nice beach for some cool weather with some gentle rain thrown in

[abijah`]

I'll swap you a nice beach for some cool weather with some gentle rain thrown in

yeah idk...

we brits just love our clouds and rain.

throw in some kangaroos as well and i guess we have a deal.

[ori]

I'll swap you a nice beach for some cool weather with some gentle rain thrown in

yeah idk...

we brits just love our clouds and rain.

throw in some kangaroos as well and i guess we have a deal.

How about we get rid of some of our hot dogs and corn dogs and you can hand over your fish 'n' chips, as well as a bit 'o'.... hm.... well I'm sure there's something else you can offer.

[abijah`]

How about we get rid of some of our hot dogs and corn dogs and you can hand over your fish 'n' chips, as well as a bit 'o'.... hm.... well I'm sure there's something else you can offer.

not a fair trade imo.

for those i would offer haggis.

they're sure cute before you cook em

[Bilcliffe]

Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems. ... Based on English common law.
-------

Commonwealth gives birth to Common Law.

As I understand it, the US system is based on English common law.

I was under the impression that commonwealth states have their judges make law...under common law.

US judges uphold the law...they don't create new law....or at least they shouldn't.

I don't think that is true.
US law is based on precedent.
Think of Roe vs Wade.

The US and Britain both share one Common Law heritage, different in important ways from European law. I was interested to hear that Commonwealth nations (save in Malta) are said to be perpetuating Common Law; I hope so.

Also trial BY JURY in criminal cases ("infamous crime" in the Bill of Rights) is continued in the USA. Warrants are required and double jeopardy is excluded; habeas corpus insisted upon. Trials in Europe are by a judge or panels of judges, not by jury. This is important because the EU courts did not observe the protections of British and American law, and EU courts were supplanting the constitutional courts Britain had previously had. I hope this will be quickly be reversed. However nothing seems to change until December; Boris Johnson et al must stick to their promises, and see that this is not just another 'extension'. The UK is "out of Europe" but but it is not yet.

[ajax]

We're out!

Congrats! Looking forward to CALEXIT, TEXIT etc...

[Original_Intent]

We're out!

Congrats! Looking forward to CALEXIT, TEXIT etc...

UTREMAIN …:P

[Robin Hood]

Question:
Given that the Saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley in order to get out of the US and become self-governing, why were BY and the church authorities so keen for Deseret/Utah statehood?

[gkearney]

Question:
Given that the Saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley in order to get out of the US and become self-governing, why were BY and the church authorities so keen for Deseret/Utah statehood?

Because they knew they would be under the authority of the United States in any event following the end of the Mexican American War and the ceding of the Mexican Territory to the United States. Therefor the only way to have any local control at all, as opposed to having Territorial Governors appointed by Washington was to become a state.

[ajax]

We're out!

Congrats! Looking forward to CALEXIT, TEXIT etc...

UTREMAIN …:P

Not as pithy, but, it's alright, if you choose to swing that way.

[Original_Intent]

We're out!

Congrats! Looking forward to CALEXIT, TEXIT etc...

UTREMAIN …:P

Not as pithy, but, it's alright, if you choose to swing that way.

I wouldn't, but I am afraid the state would - statists abound

[ajax]

Wouldn't mind seeing this at all.

USC.jpg (95.18 KiB) Viewed 1084 times

[Robin Hood]

Wouldn't mind seeing this at all.


USC.jpg

British Dominion of Canada.

[EmmaLee]

https://thenewamerican.com/could-france ... fc7fadfbd4

Could France Follow Britain Out of the European Union?
by Steve Byas
February 5, 2021

With French President Emmanuel Macron expressing disenchantment over delays with the rollout of a coronavirus vaccine, blaming it on regulations imposed by the European Union, and admitting that if a referendum were held now, the French would vote to leave the European super-state, the possibility of the implosion of the EU becomes more and more a possibility.

Macron’s chief rival, Marine Le Pen of the National Rally Party (formerly National Front Party), supports a national referendum on the question France’s EU membership, so Macron is making noises that France needs to be less dependent on the European Union.

Le Pen has made no secret of her desire to see France follow Great Britain in leaving the EU. The United Kingdom held a national referendum for a British exit (Brexit) from the EU in 2016, and Le Pen has called herself “Madame Brexit.” The U.K.’s referendum resulted in a vote of 52-48 to leave.

There is also rising disenchantment with the EU in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as in many other member states of the EU.

Political scientists cite four characteristics that determine whether a political entity is a true nation-state — population, territory, government, and sovereignty. For example, Puerto Rico has the first three, but not the last, so it is not considered a nation-state. Likewise for Greenland, which is part of Denmark. As for the historic nations of Europe, questions have been raised as to whether they are ceasing to be true nation-states, as well. Some have asserted that more regulations affecting the day-to-day lives of Europeans come from EU headquarters in Brussels than from their own national governments.

If France left the EU, that would most likely result in the ultimate demise of the European project.

However, as the example of the British exit has demonstrated, it is much easier to get into the EU than to get out of it.

When then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “No, no, no!” in a speech in the House of Commons on October 30, 1990, to a proposal for a more centralized government in Europe, it led to her political demise. Despite her having led the Conservative Party to its longest tenure of power in decades, by winning three national elections, she almost immediately faced a rebellion and was ousted from her own party.

What happened to Thatcher demonstrates the immense power of the elites who favor globalization. In Britain’s political system, the voters do not select the prime minister. They vote for the House of Commons, and the leader of the majority party becomes prime minister. As a formality, the monarch asks the leader of the majority party to be her “prime minister,” and thus the head of the government.

Thatcher was not defeated at the polls, but was overthrown by members of her own party who favored increased integration with Europe.

“We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels,” Thatcher exclaimed at the time.

But, as she found out, those who wanted a European super-state were able to get their way. And, even after the British people voted for Brexit in 2016, it has been a tremendous struggle to complete the withdrawal process. Because, you see, the elites who favor such globalization do not just accept the people’s wishes.

Americans should learn from this lesson. Continued economic integration with Canada and Mexico could lead to a similar super-state in North America — probably the North American Union. Eventually, all of these regional super-states could then be merged into a one-world government, where the wishes of the individual would be ignored by the elites who would run it, and tyrannical government would almost certainly follow.

Macron’s criticisms of the EU on the coronavirus vaccine are legitimate, no doubt, but are probably just political posturing, because he faces re-election next year. But the people of Europe — and America — better act soon if they wish their countries to remain sovereign nation-states.

[Robin Hood]

The French won't leave the EU. It's a club designed for their benefit.
I think the next country to leave will be either Poland or Hungary. The EU is very unpopular in Italy too, but I think the Italians would cave under the pressure that would be brought to bare on them, just like the Greeks did.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Irish seriously consider leaving at some point. They have a lot to lose from Brexit, and their fortunes are very closely linked with the UK. As the British economy starts to kick off the EU shackles Ireland may decide it's in it's best interest to follow suit.