To not feel proud of my country at the moment?

[Livingtothefull]

I really want to be proud - there are plenty of things to be proud of in the UK (great people/culture/heritage) - but the way we are governed at the moment just sickens me.

We have a liar and a criminal as Prime Minister, I can't bear the sight or sound of him now. 'Partygate' showed us just how much contempt he has for the British public. People are facing huge cost of living rises and poverty, and the Government offered nothing to help address this in the Queen's speech.

The latest is their proposal to break international law.

By the way the Monarchy was shown up as the useless and empty institution it is through the prorogation of Parliament episode, far from a supposed guardian of democracy. I don't have anything against the RF personally, but as an institution it has presided over all of this and yet has nothing to say about it all.

I am sick of hearing about the Jubilee as well, I see nothing to celebrate in what we have all been through over the past couple of years and are facing now. 'Rich privileged woman lives a long time' does not mean anything imo, in the context of the huge numbers of people who have died before their time due to Covid. Many of them elderly and vulnerable people in care homes - where the Government has recently been found (again) to have broken the law by putting them in harm's way.

That's as may be but given that we chose to leave the EU, they are under no obligation to make it easy for us and as we left we have no way of compelling them to play fair.

I am also appalled by Brexit, opposed it at every turn so the consequences are not on me or anyone like me.

You know this makes no sense whatsoever, don't you?

You know this makes no sense whatsoever, don't you?

Yes I was thinking that too, mental gymnastics looks like.

The latest is their proposal to break international law.

I feel sorry for NI - every thing has to have a dozen bits of paper - why should they be screwed over.

The latest HDI scores I can find online relate to 2019, prior to Covid and Brexit and in the same year of the latest UK election - so not sure if any changes will emerge as a consequence of these? Again, I would honestly expect to see the UK near the top in relation to European states, not 10th.

There are 66 of a total of 189 states in the 'very high' HDI category, so around a third - we are not talking about a tiny elite group.

Nobody is denying that when viewed worldwide the UK is a good place to be relative to many other countries. But when comparing the reality of life and its problems here with its potential, I consider that it is a much more nuanced situation than 'We're doing great'.

And I take issue with the suggestion that I am trashing the UK. Completely the opposite: I think that as a nation we deserve far better than what the ruling elite has been delivering to us.

DownNative No, the UK has a written constitution. From the University College of London: "The UK is often said to have an 'unwritten' constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents. But it has never been codified, brought together in a single document."

You really need to be more accurate instead of scathing. The UK Constitution is found in various statutes dating from the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689 through to the Act of Union 1707 between Scotland and England and to more recent statutes such as the Scotland Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, alongside common law doctrines such as parliamentary sovereignty and judicial precedents, parliamentary rules of procedure and convention, international treaties and various constitutional conventions.

I suggest you read Dicey (bit out of date but nevertheless), Raz, Tomkins, Tierney, etc. You might find Griffith, J in G Gee & G Webber, What is a Political Constitution, (2010) 30(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 273 at 277 a good starting point.

The only part you got right is the fact our constitution is spread over various documents. Acts Of Parliament is where its mostly derived.

I'm sure my colleagues will be interested in this version of our constitution!

It really doesn't make a huge difference to codify it all into a single document as the constitution will still be the same.

See above. This provides the answer to your assertion. It is the answer in the rest of the world. The UK Constitution is holding the UK back and now needs to be modernised and collated. That means a single document modern written constitution.

"Also noticeable in the UK is that the constitution can be changed by simple majority (e.g. the Brexit vote) and not by special majority." The written constitution of the Republic of Ireland can also be changed by a simple majority with no special measures required. Slovakia is another where simple majority can amend a written constitution and very easily too. I'm not going to list more examples, but the UK is neither notable or unique for this as you're suggesting.
"What on earth is wrong with written single document constitutions? The whole of the rest of Europe has them."

Slovakia and Ireland, eh? Well, no other western European nations' constitutions can be changed by simple majority. The reason being is that its not a very good idea because it leads to instability and lack of predictability. I suggest you have a look at the German constitution, most novices start of by reading Solange I and II (Case 11/70 International Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr-und-Voratsstelle Getreide (“Solange I”) [1970] ECR 1125 [1972] CMLR 255, Case 197/83 Re Wuensche Handelsgesellschaft, BVerfG (“Solange II) [1987] 3 CMLR 225.

Europe has the highest number of written constitutions with low rates of interpretability. This does not always mean its clear to citizens what their rights, duties and responsibilities are.

Erm, what is it you are trying to say here?

Written constitutions can be distorted by authoritarian governments as well. Like anything else in life, there are pros and cons to both our and other European states' approaches.

But no other large successful country has the UK model.

Most European states have required a Written constitution due to war and revolution. France, for example, had to redo theirs on several occasions with 1940 the most recent. The UK, in contrast, has not experienced the kind of constitutional upheaval most of Europe has. This has meant the UK has been able to evolve at its own speed, sometimes slow, sometimes rapidly.

And France managed to get rid of feudalism about 300 years earlier than the UK too. Really, none of this above means it isn't a good idea. I'm pretty sure that counties such as Switzerland and The Netherlands had neither wars or revolutions which led them to adopting modern single document constitutions and constitutional courts.

An example of that was the rapid constitutional change in the late 1990s - GFA, devolution and reform of Lords.

Erm, well done. Devolution hasn't been done well from a constitutional perspective because it was done in a hurry with insufficient accountability for the large amount of legislation passed by the devolved governments, which are unicameral. The already weak separation of powers is eroded even further. Seriously, if you don't understand the importance of separation of powers, start with Montesquieu and read on.

By and large, constitutional change is very disruptive which the UK has largely avoided.

You just wrote yourself a few paragraphs above about the enormous amount of constitutional change that the UK has experienced so far...

Meiji Japan the rare exception of a state that formally codified its constitution without it being a result of war or revolution. European states are the precise opposite.

Well, apart from most of them...

The popular saying is "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". The UK's uncodified constitution is no more or less valuable than other European states' codified constitutions.

Why?

Keep trying and you might find an absolute example with which to beat the UK over the head with. It's quite interesting you will ignore things you can't argue with such as the UK's placing in the UN HDI.

Thats because I'm an EU lawyer who writes on EU law and EU constitutions...

DownNative The only part you got right is the fact our constitution is spread over various documents. Acts Of Parliament is where its mostly derived.

I'm not going to respond further to you, because I can see that you aren't at the same level as me and you are more interested in points scoring on an internet forum than accuracy. Best of luck with your reading. Try to avoid internet sources such as websites and stick to formal sources. I'm not entirely convinced that UCL can be quoted under standard referencing sources. Perhaps you could link to an article or a textbook. However, given that they are agreeing with what I said and most of the world of academia thinks and you are trying to say the opposite, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this.

The latest is their proposal to break international law.

In what way? The nuclear program? That's appalling isn't it, but I haven't seen very much discussing it.

Oh Northern Ireland! That as well.

I'm with you, OP. Blighty's overrun with mendacious incompetents and racist halfwits. As soon as my parents have shuffled off I'm outta here.

I think much of the problem is the invasive media and also risk of cancelling due to Twitter etc.
If public life is totally malicious who in their right mind would put themselves out there. Hence we are left with BJ etc Now MPs lives are at risk too.

But we all join in by using fb and twitter and reading the daily mail.
Hence we are bombarded daily with negative news/ rumours/ a week of spite from RV and CR/ etc etc etc

If we haven't enough of our own negative news we also get the shootings in the US etc too

If you didn't listen to the news the world would tick over the same

Now the Daily Mail is reporting that channel migrants are asking to be returned home and not to African centres; to quote them 'as they fear being sent to Rwanda... proving Priti Patel's asylum plan IS working'.

I am not going to link to the DM on here but it is on the front page today. Regardless of whether it is actually true....AIBU to be just sickened by that? That apparently refugees desperate enough to make their way to the UK are going back because they can't face being sent to Rwanda, and some people count that a success? It is a really ugly picture of how their minds work.

I mean statistically Rwanda is safer than the UK. As its Africa though most people have incorrect assumptions about what its like. If people would rather go back to their home countries then presumably they were economic migrants, no? Or are they just ignorant as well about the country.

'I mean statistically Rwanda is safer than the UK. As its Africa though most people have incorrect assumptions about what its like. If people would rather go back to their home countries then presumably they were economic migrants, no? Or are they just ignorant as well about the country.'

My issue is not about Rwanda or the reasons why refugees might choose to go home rather than there. Or indeed whether the story is even true.

It is about the mentality of people - the writers of that article, DM readership and others - who think that refugees feeling compelled to return home (even though home may be a war zone etc) should be considered a positive thing and a success by the Government.

If it was another country, even if it was a similar distance I doubt people would be as disgusted to be honest. I'm from Africa, my parents moved here when I was 1, and so although I don't remember being a baby there when I go back to visit family the comments from people in the UK are so ignorant, it's unbelievable. This is more of the same at least in part.

I just don't understand why if all out problems are down to the government why are other countries in the same or worse position .
I broke a few covid rules but wouldn't class myself as a harden criminal .
I have a friend self-made millionaire pays all his taxes, kids private educated, employ's a small workforce and private health care . All he does is contribute to the country take nothing out . My cousin daughter had first kid at 16 ( liked babies and wanted one ) 2nd at 19 never worked a day yet my successful friend is the evil of society because he now has a bit of wealth behind him .

No interest in the royal's at all but if you want to celebrate crack on if you don't don't. What it will do is give the hospitality trade a boost saving jobs and businesses .

Covid deaths please take 3 off the total I personally know 3 that died that were on end of life before covid . Recored as cover deaths but the reality is it was the existing contain that killed them .

'I just don't understand why if all out problems are down to the government why are other countries in the same or worse position'.

I know it is true of other countries too but we have to deal with the problems in our own country. The problems are not all down to the Government necessarily, but it is their responsibility to deal with them and imo they are not doing that.

'I broke a few covid rules but wouldn't class myself as a harden criminal .'

You are not a member of the Government actually responsible for making them though. Did you get fined for breaking any of the rules? The Met had to be forced to investigate the allegation against the Government....originally they claimed they couldn't investigate the allegations as they had already happened.

'I have a friend self-made millionaire pays all his taxes, kids private educated, employ's a small workforce and private health care . All he does is contribute to the country take nothing out . My cousin daughter had first kid at 16 ( liked babies and wanted one ) 2nd at 19 never worked a day yet my successful friend is the evil of society because he now has a bit of wealth behind him .'

I certainly don't think people like your friend are 'the evil of society'. I said upthread that I don't think there is anything wrong with millionaires in a country provided deprivation and poverty isn't an issue. I obviously don't know the circumstances for your cousin's daughter but sometimes people work and pay taxes later in life after they have had their children even not at the time.

'No interest in the royal's at all but if you want to celebrate crack on if you don't don't. What it will do is give the hospitality trade a boost saving jobs and businesses .'

Of course it is fine for anyone who wants to to celebrate, but we all have to pay for the royals though whether we want them or not. And the cost of the royals should be offset against any boost to the economy; it is huge if you add in the security costs.

'Covid deaths please take 3 off the total I personally know 3 that died that were on end of life before covid . Recored as cover deaths but the reality is it was the existing contain that killed them .'

I am very sorry you lost 3 people close to you.

@rwalker other countries are not in the same position. We have the highest economic inequality between regions in the EU. GDP per capita in inner london is on par with Monaco, but there are parts in UK poorer than Bulgaria. There are parts of UK where you can only access minimum wage jobs.

As for your friend the millionaire, the fact that he uses private school and have private healthcare shows things are not fine. My parents who live in another country are millionaires, they use the public health system in their country? Why? Because the public health system is good enough. Try asking a French or a German whether they think private school is necessary if they can afford it. The fact that the rich have to use private healthcare and private school is a sign that the system is failing; if the government cannot be bothered to provide good public services, then what is the point of paying all the taxes.
btw I have private healthcare too, and there are a lot of things your friend will not be covered for. There is no private A & E for instance.

Your cousin's daughter's claiming of benefits is irrelevant in a sense. What it is symptomatic of is that there are so few opportunities for young women from certain backgrounds that universal credit is a 'viable' career option. Again symptom of inequality and why our productivity is so low. The talents of our young people are not being harnessed; 1 in 4 working age people are economically inactive. Some are students yes, but many are disabled or looking after children. This increases the tax burden on the general population. In places where having babies at a young age and then becoming beholden to the benefits system, such areas are 'net losses' and require the tax revenue of London and the south east to prop it up. After all those areas also need roads, schools and hospitals.

@rwalker a person needs to earn £35k and above to be a net contributor to the system..so in a sense, anyone who earns below that is on the same tier as benefit claimants i.e. they don't take out more than they contribute... The fact that half the population are net losses to the system says more about how low wages are than the people themselves! Surely half of the population can't be lazy and feckless. I mean a lot of essential jobs can't pay more than £35k. In fact in a lot of areas, £35k is a good wage.

I think this has more to do with government policy than that the people are too lazy to earn 35k and be good contributing citizens.

*take out more than they contribute

Your cousin's daughter's claiming of benefits is irrelevant in a sense. What it is symptomatic of is that there are so few opportunities for young women from certain backgrounds that universal credit is a 'viable' career option. Again symptom of inequality and why our productivity is so low. The talents of our young people are not being harnessed; 1 in 4 working age people are economically inactive.

The teenage pregnancy rate is as low as it's ever been. I don't think you can choose to be on UC- you are expected to get a job. We have the lowest unemployment rate for 40 years. Everyone gets 13 years of free FREE education.
But you can still go on about young people being economically inactive - beggars belief.

@Ferngreen my SIL writes online full time and also claims UC cos she only earns a few hundred pounds a month. UC is a top up. She also got no GCSEs out of her years of free education, she is 25 this year. I mean, I think I would class her as economically inactive as she isn't paying NI or tax or building up state pension. And she may never do.
The economically inactive stat is quite well known. Unemployment rates are quite misleading, someone on zero hours contract is 'employed'. Is that meaningful employment not really. Unemployment rate are people actively looking for jobs. Not the people who have given up due to various factors or realized that full time paid work would bring them so little you might as well not bother

Its interesting that posters who are saying how brilliant it is that the UK scores so highly in a UN league table, would be the same folk who would shout the UN doesn't know what they are talking about/corrupt/leftie organisation, when the UN said this about the UK recently...... (UN investigation into poverty in the UK 2019)

Some of the findings are that: One fifth of the population (14 million people) live in poverty. 1.5 million of the population experienced destitution in 2017. Close to 40% of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021

What makes me ashamed of the UK is the state of the NHS, it has been deliberately destroyed over recently years.

From choosing not to staff it properly to under funding adult social care, its in a terrible mess, not least maternity and ambulance sectors.

..and no, not CV, it had almost 4m waiting for treatment in 2019/20, with 110k staff vacancies back then, we still charge nurses/AHP's 50k to earn below UK average wages.

No one in my street has flags out for the queen.

This x 100%