FediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

I don't know if people in the UK realise how much danger there is from Reform.

The UK political system has no written constitution, it has left the EU and two of its major parties say they intend to leave the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR would allow the UK parliament to do anything it wants including a re-run of 1930s/40s Germany.

There would be no supreme court to stop it because there is no constitution. The monarchy wouldn't do anything either.

Fascists in power in the UK would have no checks and balances. Trump has at least had some speedbumps slowing him down, Farage would have nothing stopping him at all.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Because that is stopping Trump. Nothing magical about a constitution. It certainly had a charter, though I suspect it's adapted over the years
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

It hasn't stopped him but it's slowed him down. If the US Supreme Court had non-corrupt members it might slow him down even more, or perhaps stop some things.

But there is no structure like that in the UK, and the only restrictions are things like the EU and ECHR.

The UK's EU membership is gone, the ECHR membership is under threat. If that goes too, then pretty much anything becomes legal for whoever has a majority in parliament. Whatever they want, they could pass a law to enable it and there would be nothing restraining them.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Oh, are you an expert on the UK legal system?
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈

@ariaflame

You don't have to be an expert to realise there is no written constitution in the UK.

And it also doesn't require legal training to know that when the UK has denied people human rights, people have often managed to get these rights back by taking the case to the European Court. That would stop if the UK withdraws from the ECHR.

Human rights would then be entirely decided by whoever has a majority in the UK parliament. If that's a fascist party, then the UK is in big trouble.

Jul 17 at 1:42pmWeb
Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Is that before or after the reform of 2003?
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

Could you explain further?

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/
The justice system and the constitution - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Find out more about the UK's 3 separate legal systems; for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

That article is about the organisation of the UK justice system, it doesn't seem to make any mention of international treaties or human rights?

Show threadHighlandLawyer5d ago
@ariaflame @FediThing
Those 2003 changes only apply to the judicial system of England & Wales.
Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame the ‘Supreme Court’, that ruled people like me don't count, is simply the result of a regular Act of Parliament which delegated Parliament's duties as the highest court to an ‘independent’ body.

It can be undone with a simple majority.

That I beleive is @FediThing 's real point.

Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing Personally I think the ‘no written constitution’ point is often overblown, and their are certainly parts of out system that changes too would cause similar uproar to violating one, but nevertheless it is certainly true that a whole bunch of things — including the increasingly ineffectual Supreme Court that doesn't have massive public support to begin with — are little more than a simple majority away from disappearing.

Especially in a post-ECHR scenario.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing SCOTUS isn't exactly maintaining human rights or the constitution in the USA after all. Whether it's a written constitution or not, it depends on whether people honour it.
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

I agree, and once you have corrupt people in such courts they become pointless, but there is at least some kind of slowdown there.

If the judges had been appointed in a less corrupt manner, the court would have had more effect.

In the UK there is nothing at all like that.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing So you didn't read the article I linked to. It specifically talked about how the judiciary is organised in the UK. And I'm afraid that International Law is even more on the honour system than anything else.
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

I did read it but it seems to be about internal reorganisation by abolishing the role of Lord Chancellor?

It doesn't say anything about human rights or international law?

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing No, that's in the Human Rights Act of 1998. At least it has Equal Rights laws (Equality act of 2010). The USA has failed to get Equal Rights as a constitutional amendment yet. Guess it's not important to them.
Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing

‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

— Fourteenth Amendment, not that anyone seems to care.

Show threadDavid Mitchell 5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing @zbrown

Not an American, but curious… is this part of Section 1 understood to bind the federal government or only States, which are explicitly enjoined?

Show threadzbrown5d ago

@DavidM_yeg @ariaflame @FediThing I'm not USian either, but I beleive the focus on ‘the States’ here is both because of the Civil War, and also because the 5th Amendment already applies similar clauses to the federal government directly.

AFAIK it's previously been held that basically ‘due process is due process’, even with the the difference in phrasing, though as we know the US happily ignored both amendments for a century (or more), and looks to fully intend doing so again…

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing It does say that judicial appointments are not political appointments and are meant to be independent of government influence.
Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing And of course the USA doesn't feel itself held to any of the Human Rights declaration either. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law", and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can "scrutinize" the nation's obligations to international instruments and their enforceability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

Sure, but having a written constitution does have some use. For example it was the constitution's requirement to hold a federal election in 2020 which took Trump out of power after his first term (even though he tried to incite an armed rebellion against the result).

There is nothing like that forcing a UK parliament to hold regular elections except whatever laws they decide to pass or amend.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Given that SCOTUS is allowing him to act unconstitutionally, I don't see how that's an argument for how it's useful.
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

I agree a constitution by itself doesn't guarantee anything and a corrupt judiciary can ignore it, but having a written constitution is better than not having one. Not every judiciary is corrupt.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Are all constitutions the same? How are they different from written law, or such things as the magna carta? How easily are they changed from country to country?
Show threadFediThing 🏳️‍🌈5d ago

@ariaflame

They're obvs not the same but at least in democracies they usually do things like guarantee regular free elections, universal suffrage etc.

Nothing is a magic bullet, but a written constitution is another slice of swiss cheese in the layers protecting a country from despotism.

The UK now has dangerously few layers protecting itself from going down a grim path.

Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing Well the USA doesn't have those. They're not free if it's easy for the government to remove you from the rolls. If the government deliberately makes it harder to vote. If it aims to remove the rights and citizenships of its citizens. They might be on paper (some of them) but they don't seem to be doing anything.
Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing It is a shame they chose not to do ranked choice voting back in the day. That would have helped.
Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing It's also several countries in a trenchcoat, so while they might be able to affect say Westminster, they likely can't affect the Scottish Parliament the same way.
Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing the Scotland Act 1998 can be amended — as happens every few years — by simple majority vote.

It can be repealed by simple majority vote.

There would likely be riots if they did, and international condemnation, but, ultimately, Westminster can ‘affect the Scottish Parliament’ in any way it likes.

For that matter the SNP's lead is slipping, they'll survive next year but between Reform, Tories, and Alba, the Scottish Parliament could well be fascist itself circa 2030.

Show threadAriaflame4d ago
@zbrown @FediThing Well, we will just hope not, because it's clear that no piece of paper or legislation on its own will stop a government that's inclined to be fascist.
Show threadzbrown4d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing we shouldn't just hope not, we should be actively looking to build and reinforce institutions — especially the ECHR, to rally support for democratic alternatives, and keep calling things out.

It's already happening.

Show threadAriaflame4d ago
@zbrown @FediThing I wish you luck, I'm not sure there's much I can do to help from Australia.
Show threadAriaflame5d ago
@FediThing The USA however seems to be locked into a really bad election system that has elections on a day that is hard for many people to make, isn't independently run, has archaic and outdated rules for winning that give one side a distinct advantage. Me, I'm glad I'm in Australia to be honest.
Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing UDHR ≠ ECHR.

The ECHR was specifically established because of European dissatisfaction with the UDHR:

> Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration,

Our Convention is specifically *about* imposing obligations on signatories.

Show threadzbrown5d ago

@ariaflame @FediThing In many ways it forms a de facto Constitution for Europe, and it is certainly far from perfect but it does have somewhat substantial bite, and abandoning it would require expulsion from the Council of Europe and *seriously* chill relations with the EU.

The ECHR, unlike the US's UDHR, is worth the paper it's printed on and more, having measurably improved the lives of millions and played a role in restraining the worst excesses of several governments.