There are both advantages and disadvantages of living in a Unitary State like the United Kingdom as opposed to a Federal State such the United States of America. The advantage of a Unitary State is that it is nimble, it’s Constitutional settlement that can flex when necessary. Such as if there was a sudden geopolitical emergency.

In the UK Parliament is literally King. Parliament is Sovereign, it can basically pass almost any Law it wants. It can’t unilaterally change stuff like the Succession Settlement or decree that a Roman Catholic could become Monarch without consulting the Commonwealth, but apart from stuff like that Parliament can do what it damned well likes.

If Parliament wanted for example to restrict exports in time of geopolitical trouble then it could do that and did in 1939 with the Customs Powers (Defence) Act which was enacted just as War broke out. Britain also imposed ruthless government controls of food production and distribution, clothes, fuel, restricted movement and impressed the public into War Service during World War II. It could do that so quickly in part because Britain is a Unitary State with supreme power residing in Parliament.

Yes I know that in the USA Federal Laws can be passed that bind all states no matter what, but unless there’s some convulsive national emergency for example the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour or unless one party has massive majorities in both the House and the Senate, then big changes can be impeded. Republicans may for example propose Bills that protect the sex barrier in sport in order that only women complete in women’s sports but the bill might be blocked by the Democrats. There’s also the matter of American political parties often being Big Tent coalitions. Each party has both robust and conciliatory wings that need to be kept on side when proposing or opposing legislation.

However the trade off in a Federal State is that the average person’s laws are made much closer to them than in a Unitary State. Nebraskans make laws the are the choice of Nebraskans and in the Nebraskan legislature, Texans make laws that are the choice of Texans with some laws enacted on a Federal Level as per Article VI of the US Constitution. In America it appears that the Law that people interact with every day is more often State Law rather than Federal Law.

A disadvantage of a Unitary State and it is one that is shared by totalitarian regimes run under the Fuhrerprizip, is that what happens when your Parliament is full of madmen and women or your singular leader has lost the plot? We’ve all seen how frighteningly easy it is for a cohort of politicians to be possessed of some new and oddball ideology that ‘feels right’ but might not be right with the issue of Transgenderism. At the height of this hysteria, when Troons were being celebrated as role models when drag queen storytime was being pushed at children, too many British politicians caught the bug and bought into the ideology of Trans.

This was and is not a phenomenon that is confined to one party, it’s a cross party infection. It’s in the Labour Party, the Tories and especially in the Liberal Democrat Party I’m afraid the madness of trans is across the board, MP’s across nearly all the parties save probably Reform and some of the Ulster Protestant Parties sing with one voice on this matter although things are slowly changing.

If Parliament wanted and the party that proposed the measure had enough members in the Commons to carry the day we could see legislation that explicitly protected same sex places. The problem is it’s not because Parliament cannot enact such a law but they will not. The ideological contagion of Trans in Parliament is still quite strong and it will be a while yet before enough MP’s give it up or are replaced at election time before such a law could be passed.

A similar situation exists with regard to expelling from Britain some of the worst of those that Britain has imported. A good example of which is Shabir Ahmed a man who was the ringleader of one of Britain’s horrific Islamic Rape Gangs. He is due to be released after serving part of a long sentence for rape and other sexual offences connected to gang based child sexual exploitation. The government stripped this man who had migrated to Britain of his British Citizenship after his convictions. However he can’t be deported because of a loophole in the law that said that because he arrived prior to 1973 we cannot get rid of him.

Parliament could change this situation but they don’t. There’s nothing preventing a government backed Private Members Bill or a Government Bill being put through Parliament that would remove this loophole, but they do not.

Here’s what Christopher Talbot a Law Student writing on X said about this situation (source link below).

“The claim that this grooming gang ringleader “cannot be deported” is not an absolute or constitutional barrier. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. It can pass, amend, or repeal any law whatsoever. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation passed by Parliament. The current protection comes from a specific provision in the Immigration Act 1971 (section 7) that exempts certain Commonwealth citizens who arrived before 1973 from deportation, even after British citizenship has been stripped. Parliament could repeal or amend that provision, or pass new primary legislation expressly providing for the deportation (or removal) of foreign nationals convicted of serious child sexual offences, notwithstanding any other rule of law. If the Government wanted to deport him, it could introduce a Bill to do exactly that. Parliament could pass it. The current position is a choice under existing law, not an impossibility.”

He’s right. Parliament could close this loophole or as Mr Talbot says pass specific legislation that deemed deportation or removal of foreign born sex offenders was to be carried out. Parliament could do this but they do not. The failure to make legislation that would enable Britons to be free of monsters like Ahmed and those like him is not forced on Parliament by the Courts, by nor international law (which many countries ignore when needed) nor any other reason. Parliament not enacting laws to enable Britain to be rid of those who harm us is a conscious choice by Parliament.

Britain has a great advantage in its unitary status Parliament can move quickly in response to problems and challenges. A Parliamentary Democracy in a unitary state can do things faster and with more immediate national impact than a Federal system sometimes does. The problem is that this power that Parliament has is squandered to the detriment of all. We could have better controlled borders, we could have one law for all, we could have experimental low tax enterprise zones to rebuild our industrial base. We could have all manner of good laws including those that allow the removal of foreign rapists, if Parliament chose to do so. If these Parliamentarians are addled in the head over issues like transgenderism or being nice to imported rapists then maybe we should replace them with some more suited to our needs and desires?

Link

Christopher Talbot on X

https://x.com/Lord_Talbot64/status/2072023949068648614

This piece also published at https://peakd.com/britain/@mrfahrenheit211/its-not-that-the-politicians-cannot-do-things-it-is-that-they-will-not