Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I might be wrong but it was there before the Normans. I believe it was Alfred the Great who instituted it.

You're wrong about Alfred - you're probably thinking of the first comprehensive Law Code: http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/laws/texts/Af/

Magna Carta was the first page on the modern Statute Book - but the English were issuing Law Codes in English not Latin long before that.

Norman Law was issued in Latin - so the English couldn't read it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, you could look at the number of countries which have adopted the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...heWorldMap.png

I think Indonesia compares favourably with Pakistan nowadays.

YES!

Just look, the autocracy of the EU was conceived in an area with Civil Law - but Britain has Common Law, we don't belong!

[Papewaio]

Or, you could look at the number of countries which have adopted the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...heWorldMap.png

I think Indonesia compares favourably with Pakistan nowadays.

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

[Fragony]

Indonesia has been independant since the fifties, it used to be a Dutch colony. Indonesia becomming independant is a very bloody history we would rather forget.

[Kralizec]

Wrong. Gavelkind was 'common law' in Kent long after the Norman invasion. The Normans were forced to accept common law based on Saxon customs. Read English legal history; law comes from the bottom up.

Chances are that I've read more about English legal history than you did. So again: you're wrong.

Of course the people had laws and customs before the Normans came, thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'm going to spell it out for you one last time: these laws and customs differed from region to region. The system of common law allowed for a uniform legal system by binding all regions to legal precedents. The Saxons did not have this system and therefore did not have "common law" as we know it today.

This is why we elect legislators, something you appear to oppose.

I never posted anything that could be construed as such.

Common law relies far more on (unelected) judges to develop law than continental systems. In comparison with civil law systems, the English legal system has very little in the way of statutes - i.e. law made by elected representatives.

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

I think I'd rather live in Iran than in Pakistan. Neither are appealing, though.
Indonesia is a more or less secular state with equality before the law. The same is not true for Malaysia. Any comparison with Australia (or Canada) is unfair for obvious reasons.

I don't see how any of this is supposed to prove common law is better in any way. Ex-colonies seem to always keep the legal system that their occupier left in place. Turkey, Egypt, Japan and China are countries that were never "colonized" by western powers and they all chose to adopt the civil law system.

[Sarmatian]

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

I'm inclined to believe that also has a lot to with how populated those colonies were and how much of a strong system already existed.

USA and Australia are mostly European immigrants. Those were vast, sparsely populated lands with local population living in nomadic lifestyle with little or no centralisation. Europeans arrive, local population is assimilated, exterminated or ignored, and it was easy for Europeans to set up a system, any system, and make it work.

That's a stark contrast to India for example, or even Dutch colonies in south-eastern Asia.

[Furunculus]

The proof in the British system of law would be best done in a larger sample set. Normally a very difficult thing to do with countries.

i believe that there has been a study of ex british and french colonies in an attempt to see which group exhibited superior outcomes in economic terms and political stability.

common law was superior, but by how much i cannot recall.

if sometime could track that study down i'd be very grateful, it was referenced in a book many years ago.

-------------------------------------------------

target 2 springs back into the picture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-headache.html

[gaelic cowboy]

target 2 springs back into the picture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-headache.html

That Target 2 thing is a myth though cos during a euro breakup you only pay for the amount of the ECB that you own.

Therefore Germany would be smiling and anyone with a trade imbalance with Germany is not.


The large imbalance shows quite simply that money is flowing into Germany from places like Spain, Italy, Greece etc etc etc in the form of bank deposits and trade.

The reality is that Draghi could solve any target 2 problem caused by a breakup by updating a spreadsheet in ECB HQ by deleteing liability and inputting the word asset instead.

[Fragony]

. Europeans arrive, local population is assimilated, exterminated or ignored, and it was easy for Europeans to set up a system, any system, and make it work.

Kinda sums it up. Not very nice of us.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Indonesia isn't really civil law as we know it, hence why Sharia in Aceh. It never was, certainly not under Dutch rule (which was never as strong as British rule over India was, for example). Also, Egypt was colonised by Britain (after it failed to pay its debts).

[Kralizec]

I've always assumed that Indonesia had a civil code- I knew about the sharia enclave but always thought that it was simply a case of a province excercising its autonomy. Apparently though Indonesia is a quagmire of different legal traditions, pre-napoleonic civil law being one of them.

Egypt was not a colony in the traditional sense, they never claimed to be sovereign over the territory AFAIK. In any case, the point was that they opted for a civil law system. The only instance I can think of when a country that's not a former British colony adopted common law as a system is Israel; and even that had its roots in the British protectorate.

[SoFarSoGood]

Of course the people had laws and customs before the Normans came, thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'm going to spell it out for you one last time: these laws and customs differed from region to region. The system of common law allowed for a uniform legal system by binding all regions to legal precedents. The Saxons did not have this system and therefore did not have "common law" as we know it today.

I never posted anything that could be construed as such.

You are WRONG! With laws based on custom (since before the Norman invasion) you cannot have a 'uniform system'. What is cusomary in one place is NOT customary in another place. Hanging of fishing nets in a specific place in a specific town is specific to that place - not 'uniform law'.

You also imply that our Judges make the law. They do not! They are bound by the law.

You said that our elected representatives should ignore the opinions of those that elected them... In what way is that represneting us?

[Kralizec]

No, you are wrong. (this is fun)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_...ish_common_law

In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system – citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.

I was slightly mistaken in that the King responsible for it, though he came after William I, was not a "Norman". Everything else I've said is true.

On the point of judges making law:

Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before Parliament acquired legislative powers to create statutory law. It is important to understand that common law is the older and more traditional source of law, and legislative power is simply a layer applied on top of the older common law foundation. Since the 12th century, courts have had parallel and co-equal authority to make law[47] -- "legislating from the bench" is a traditional and essential function of courts¨

[Fragony]

There is a difference between the laws of the constitunional monarchy and the nation-state you should know that Kraz

[Sarmatian]

There is a difference between the laws of the constitunional monarchy and the nation-state you should know that Kraz

Huh? Constitutional monarchy can be a nation-state and vice-versa.

[Fragony]

Huh? Constitutional monarchy can be a nation-state and vice-versa.

Can be, but it is a different thing here. Never underestimate the weirdness of the Netherands.

[Kralizec]

I have no idea what you're getting at, Frag.

[SoFarSoGood]

I also was slightly wrong about the proof of custom. I said 1189 so 30yrs out. The point is that Henry ll didn't 'make' common law; he recognised it.

Judges are bound by precedent. 'Law from the bench' cannot break previous precedent.

Apart from the modern reliance on Statute Law (and even some of that is challenged in court) the only 'innovation' to Common Law was the intriduction of Equity (which today deals with negligence, estoppel in the High Trees case etc) and the origins of this are more from Cannon Law and the Court of Star Chamber.

You aregued that elected Governments should ignore the opinion of the people. They cannot. Even today the West Coast line Franchise has been withdrawn following a threatened judicial review. Governments are bound by law - as with Henry ll so today.

[Kralizec]

Precedents can be unmade by the court who set it, or by a higher court. Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments can ignore the opinion of the people (obviously, I can't count the times I've seen British people complain about it here), and in many cases rightly do so. If we decided every issue by referendum we wouldn't have enough tax money (taxes being unpopular) to cover a disproportionally large public sector (because expensive, high quality services are popular). Governments are accountable once - when they're up for reelection. They're under no legal or constitutional obligation to follow public opinion. It's risky to do so repeatedly, for obvious reasons.

In your case, your government - or rather, your parliament - has absolute freedom to do whatever the hell it pleases. There's the vague thing called "convention and custom" which can be violated, and there'd be no remedy. There are no written laws, no printed constitutions that limit what parliament can do. The only limit here is that Parliament can not bind itself to an irreversible reduction of power. And EU membership is reversable, though we don't have any real life examples of that - yet.

[Fragony]

I have no idea what you're getting at, Frag.

Simple, there are two sets of law, the law of the nation-state the Netherlands and the law of the constitutional monarchy, there is a little legal timebomb ticking as the Dutch monarchy is inconstitutional as they are not descendants of the the oranges, making all law signed by her majesty inconstitutional. That was solved by Beatricks by sneaking in the different concept that is the constitutional monarchy where she and here hatchlings can no longer be hurt.

[Kralizec]

I think you're referring to the distinction between staatsrecht/constitutional law (i.e. we're a monarchy, have a parliament, provinces and whatnot) and the other areas of law. Every country in the world has this, so I was confused about your statement.

Is this about that theory of Wilhelmina not being a real daughter of Willem III? Can't say that I care either way, they could be descended of Moses himself and I'd still be against the monarchy.

[Fragony]

I think you're referring to the distinction between staatsrecht/constitutional law (i.e. we're a monarchy, have a parliament, provinces and whatnot) and the other areas of law. Every country in the world has this, so I was confused about your statement.

Is this about that theory of Wilhelmina not being a real daughter of Willem III? Can't say that I care either way, they could be descended of Moses himself and I'd still be against the monarchy.

For the constitution the royal family has to be an descended of the Orange family. I don't give a crap either I want them all gone, but a clever lawyer can make good use of it. Any law signed would immediatly be invalid. The Dutch royal family has been extinct for a few centuries and Beatricks refuses to cooperate with DNA tests. Pretty big problem if you make one of it. Nobody dares, but it's possible.

[Kralizec]

Not exactly. The constitution says that the king/queen must be a lawful descendant of Willem I, the guy they put on the throne in 1814.

And lawful descendant isn't the same as biologicial descent. It usually amounts to the same thing, but doesn't have to. If a "father" knows a kid isn't his natural son but doesn't get the records changed to reflect that, they'll still be related in the eyes of the law.

I'm not surprised that Beatrix doesn't feel the need to take a DNA test. The controversy around Obama's birthplace comes to mind - he didn't show his birth certificate at first, because the birther theory was obviously bull from the outset (yes, I realize he did eventually show it)

Who was the last Orange descendant, according to you?

[Fragony]

Not exactly. The constitution says that the king/queen must be a lawful descendant of Willem I, the guy they put on the throne in 1814.

And lawful descendant isn't the same as biologicial descent. It usually amounts to the same thing, but doesn't have to. If a "father" knows a kid isn't his natural son but doesn't get the records changed to reflect that, they'll still be related in the eyes of the law.

I'm not surprised that Beatrix doesn't feel the need to take a DNA test. The controversy around Obama's birthplace comes to mind - he didn't show his birth certificate at first, because the birther theory was obviously bull from the outset (yes, I realize he did eventually show it)

Who was the last Orange descendant, according to you?

That is the difference I was hinting at Kraz, the law of the contitutional monrachy are not he same laws of the nation state. i don't know who was the last descendant he supposedly broke his neck when his horse aurevoired him 300 years ago, don't care either

[Fragony]

Oh, to just about anyone's surprise Spain needs more money. 40.000.000.000 of it. The International-socialism unsurprisingly reacts that we need more political integration with Brussels, they will be really sweet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precedents can be unmade by the court who set it, or by a higher court. Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments can ignore the opinion of the people (obviously, I can't count the times I've seen British people complain about it here), and in many cases rightly do so. If we decided every issue by referendum we wouldn't have enough tax money (taxes being unpopular) to cover a disproportionally large public sector (because expensive, high quality services are popular). Governments are accountable once - when they're up for reelection. They're under no legal or constitutional obligation to follow public opinion. It's risky to do so repeatedly, for obvious reasons.

In your case, your government - or rather, your parliament - has absolute freedom to do whatever the hell it pleases. There's the vague thing called "convention and custom" which can be violated, and there'd be no remedy. There are no written laws, no printed constitutions that limit what parliament can do. The only limit here is that Parliament can not bind itself to an irreversible reduction of power. And EU membership is reversable, though we don't have any real life examples of that - yet.

Governments are elected on manifestos though - every UK party offered a referendum on Europe prior to the last two elections, so the voters can't be accused of voting for the status quo.

I appreciate that you can't run everything via referenndum - but the signing of treaties and transfer of competencies are not "everything", they are a very specific thing.

[Furunculus]

That Target 2 thing is a myth though cos during a euro breakup you only pay for the amount of the ECB that you own.

Therefore Germany would be smiling and anyone with a trade imbalance with Germany is not.

The large imbalance shows quite simply that money is flowing into Germany from places like Spain, Italy, Greece etc etc etc in the form of bank deposits and trade.

The reality is that Draghi could solve any target 2 problem caused by a breakup by updating a spreadsheet in ECB HQ by deleteing liability and inputting the word asset instead.

yes, thank you for that, i recall the previous debate about target 2 from a month or so ago.

interesting - certainly too complicated for me to feel that i understand it thoroughly enough to predict the consequences of its unravelling. :)

[gaelic cowboy]

yes, thank you for that, i recall the previous debate about target 2 from a month or so ago.

interesting - certainly too complicated for me to feel that i understand it thoroughly enough to predict the consequences of its unravelling. :)

Well lets remember that if it was breaking up it would be in the midst of a massive crisis and would likely not be handled very well by anyone.

In short everyone would lose

[Furunculus]

what about if greece left in eighteen months time, followed by a lisbon 2.0 treaty that provided an enhanced cooperation 'core' along with an exit clause for those unable to submit to it.

an option taken by italy and spain in the years following.

[gaelic cowboy]

what about if greece left in eighteen months time, followed by a lisbon 2.0 treaty that provided an enhanced cooperation 'core' along with an exit clause for those unable to submit to it.

an option taken by italy and spain in the years following.

Greece wont be leaving anytime soon when there trying to put out a fire in Spain and Italy.

They would have to explain how you could leave and that would end up meaning Spain would have to go due to market pressure, so basically they wont be doing that.

The likelyhood for my money is that Spain will try to limp on till ESM/ECB comes to the rescue outside troika control.

Everytime I read about this stuff I just depress myself more especially when I read a moronic comment like this

All key parties agree in any case that EU-IMF Troika discipline in Ireland and Portugal would collapse if Spain secures softer terms. "Everything will fall apart unless the conditions imposed on Spain are extremely tough. Madrid should have no illusions about this," said one German policy-maker.

In other words there is a fire next door so were going to worry about what sort of fireproof materials the neighbours are putting in.