Is Britain a typical separation of powers? If not, please explain, analyze.

Basically, Britain is also a separation of powers.

However, due to historical reasons, the United Kingdom does not have a clear constitution, so that the legislative power is higher than the other two powers (i.e., the executive power and the judicial power) in the separation of powers, that is, any bill passed by Parliament is the highest act and is not regulated by any constitutional statute. British Parliament.

The judiciary can be passed through any new bill.

There is no power to declare the new Act null and void (e.g. Pickin v British Railway Board).

In addition, the power of the British executive is traditionally derived from two aspects, one is the acts passed by Parliament, and the other is the royal prerogative. Crown privileges are some of the powers that the British crown retains, such as the power to sign international conventions, the right to declare war.

The power to issue passports to nationals, the right to amnesty, etc. The Crown is also a power that cannot be challenged by the judicial power. So, in general, the legislative power in the United Kingdom is the supreme power, and this arrangement is the cornerstone of the Constitution.

The second is the executive power, and the lowest is the judicial power. In the United Kingdom, the judiciary simply adjudicates cases based on existing legislation and common law cases.

The United States is most typically in the U.S. Constitution.

There is a clear separation of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and there are checks and balances between them. At that time, this kind of constitutional system was an unprecedented new attempt. To this day, the United States of America Federal**.

The separation of powers is still the most complete among many democracies. Most states** in the United States have the same constitutional structure.

Britain is not, the real emphasis on the separation of powers is the United States, the idea of separation of powers put forward by Montesquieu, Britain is a parliamentary country, the details can be found in high school history.

Britain has been a constitutional monarchy since the Glorious Revolution, and the most typical separation of powers is the United States.

The UK is not a constitutional monarchy

(2018) Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu believed that the legislative, executive and judicial powers must be separated, otherwise freedom will cease to exist. This idea is best embodied in the 1787 Constitution of the United States.

2014 Xiaogan) "The Americans have thus brilliantly created a new ** power structure, where Congress, **, and the Supreme Court are three-legged and mutually restrictive. "The principle established in the material refers to the principle of separation of powers.

There is no difference in the essence of the separation of powers in a normal country, it is the separation of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and it is nothing more than a little difference in specific practices.

There are similarities and differences between the political system of the United Kingdom and the "separation of powers" of the United States. First of all, they are all bourgeois democracies in the same place, and they both belong to the political system of capitalist countries, and they are all different in many places, such as:

First of all, Britain has a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, his king is hereditary, and more power is in the hands of the prime minister. The British constitution also stipulates that the king of England must be hereditary. That is to say, in England, the king is a fictitious office, only the spiritual symbol of the country, his behavior and so on are all subject to the law and control, in a unified and ungoverned position, the parliament is a country's center of power to exercise legislative power, the cabinet holds executive power and is responsible to the parliament.

And the separation of powers in the United States is the ruler of the country, which has more power than the king, and the United States is elected by the popular voters through elections. **Lead his team to form ** is only responsible to his constituents and does not need to be accountable to the parliament, **is not only the head of state but also the head of ** and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the absolute right to appoint and dismiss **, but the financial power and legislative power are supervised and constrained by the parliament.

Second, there are differences between the two in the political system. The United States is a first-class country, and there was no political party relationship in the early political system, but the role of political parties continued to play an increasingly important role in the later political evolution, so the candidate of the United States ** became the election of the American political party. Behind it represents a series of political blocs.

Both the head of state and the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. **It has the power to appoint and dismiss officials and make contracts, but it is subject to parliamentary supervision and restraint in terms of finance and legislation.

Britain should say that there is no separation of powers, it is a typical parliamentary sovereignty. The executive cabinet is essentially made up of a part of the parliamentary majority group, and the prime minister of the executive cabinet is the leader of the parliamentary majority. The long-standing Supreme Court is not an American-style Supreme Court, but a combination of multiple institutions, and it is only in the past two years that a new Supreme Court has been separated from the judicial functions of the House of Lords.

It's all a trick to deceive the common people. The actual power is still in the hands of the powerful. And with the fig leaf of the separation of powers, it is even more blatant.

1. The characteristics of the British constitutional monarchy are: the king is in the position of "unification but not rule", and his status as a symbol of the country is more prominent. Parliament is the highest legislative body of the country, and the Cabinet holds executive power and is accountable to Parliament.

2. The system of separation of powers has different manifestations in Western countries, and the more representative ones are the first system in the United States, the cabinet system in the United Kingdom, and the two-head system in France. In the United States, the executive power refers to the upper and lower houses of Congress, and the judicial power refers to the courts, and the three check and balance each other. During Roosevelt's New Deal, the executive power was comprehensively expanded, and a new pattern of separation of powers centered on the first was established.

There is no written constitution in the United Kingdom, and the legislative power is higher than the executive and judicial powers, and the Supreme Court was not established until 2010. At the time of the establishment of the Fifth Republic, France created and implemented a semi-parliamentary democracy. Therefore, only the United States has a relatively thorough separation of powers, while the vast majority of other Western countries mainly practice a parliamentary system, and the legislative and executive powers are not completely separated.

The cabinet system in the United Kingdom.

Cabinet system: The cabinet that oversees the executive power of the state is elected on the basis of the parliament and is accountable to the parliament. The leader of the political party or coalition of parties with a majority of seats in parliament is the head of the cabinet and forms the cabinet. The Cabinet is subject to parliamentary supervision, and when the Parliament does not have confidence in the cabinet, it can remove the cabinet.

Under this system, the head of state nominally represents the state, but has no actual executive power. Different from the cabinet system are the ** system and the monarchy.

Features: 1. The executive and legislative (referring to the legislative initiative, and the proposed bill must be deliberated and voted on by the cabinet) are integrated, rather than an obvious separation of powers, and there is no first-class check and balance mechanism.

2. The Head of State and the Chief Executive shall be two persons. Because of the differences between historical traditions and individual systems, its name is not fixed. The head of state is either called a king, a **, or a grand duke (e.g. Luxembourg) or a prince (e.g. Liechtenstein).

As for the executive head, he is often referred to as the prime minister or prime minister.

3. The election of the head of the executive block is based on the consent of the Parliament and is accountable to the Parliament. Heads of the executive and cabinet members are usually allowed to serve as members of parliament (although some countries prohibit them from doing so) and may be removed from office due to lack of confidence in Parliament. As a result, the term of office of the Cabinet is less fixed.

(4) When an order is issued by the Head of State, it shall be countersigned by the Chief Executive or the relevant Cabinet Member to clarify his powers and responsibilities, and the responsibility for such order shall be borne by the countersignatory. If it is not countersigned, the Decree of the Führer shall not take effect. Thus the role of the Führer is "reign but not govern".

5. Heads of State usually undertake mainly ceremonial tasks. However, in the event of an imminent crisis in the country, it is necessary to appoint a new chief executive or declare emergency powers to protect the country from the crisis. Thus, although the head of state does not exercise power regularly, he still has symbolic power or reserved power.

The executive head is indirect. Normally, the people elect the members of Parliament, who then elect the chief executive. As for the method of selecting the head of state, it is mostly through the succession of monarchs (constitutional monarchy state) or indirect election (republican state), but there are also direct elections.

7. The Parliament usually has the "power to overthrow the Cabinet", and the Cabinet usually has the "Power to Dissolve the Parliament", but there are exceptions. These two powers make it easier for members under the Cabinet system to have a stronger party spirit and maintain party discipline, because if members of the ruling party do not approve of the Cabinet's decisions, resulting in the "collapse of the Cabinet", members will have to face it again**.

If the opposition legislators do not support their party's decision-making and instead support the ruling party, the party will lose the opportunity to govern, and at the same time, it may lose the election due to the voters' betrayal. Based on this, the parliamentary cabinet system usually has a stronger party discipline and a more complete party organization.

The system of separation of powers is different in Western countries, and the more representative ones are the first system in the United States, the cabinet system in the United Kingdom, and the two-head system in France.

Strictly speaking, the British cabinet system should be called the parliamentary system or the parliamentary cabinet system. It is based on the parliament as the core of power, the administrative system is controlled by the parliament, the executive power and the legislative power are integrated, and the cabinet needs to be responsible to the parliament.

The Prime Minister is usually the leader of a political party or coalition of parties that holds a majority of seats in Parliament. The Prime Minister selects cabinet members from among members of parliament who share basically the same political views and submits them to the head of state for appointment, thus forming the cabinet. The head of state nominally represents the state, but does not have the executive power of Liang Song, and the cabinet is fully responsible to the parliament on behalf of the head of state.

The characteristics of the <> are as follows: the integration of the executive and the legislature, and there is no first-class check and balance mechanism.

The head of State and the head of the executive are divided into two.

The executive head is elected on the basis of the consent of the parliament and is accountable to the parliament.

When the head of state issues an order, it must be countersigned by the chief executive or the relevant cabinet member to clarify his powers and responsibilities, and the responsibility for such order shall be borne by the countersigner.

Heads of state usually undertake mainly ceremonial tasks.

The executive head is indirect.

Parliament usually has the "power to overthrow the Cabinet", and the Cabinet usually has the "Power to Dissolve the Diet".

The theory of "separation of powers" and checks and balances can be traced back to the republican era of the ancient Roman state, a Western slave society, and it was Polybius (204 BC-122 BC), the first Roman legal thinker, who explored this principle and theory. The form of government adopted by the Roman Empire at that time was a state political system of mixed government, in which there were three kinds of forces within the Roman Empire: consuls (or administrators) represented the monarchical power; The Senate represented the power of the aristocratic group; The civilian parliament represents the democratic forces.

In England, when the bourgeoisie carried out the revolution at that time, its strength was very weak, the feudal power was still strong, and the new feudal aristocracy that evolved from the feudal landlord class advocated the reform of the old feudal legal system on the one hand, and on the other hand was afraid that the bourgeoisie would negate and overthrow the existing system, so the new feudal aristocracy became an obstacle and the main object of the bourgeois revolution. In the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, the English bourgeoisie showed a weak side, and they were never able to carry out the bourgeois revolution in its entirety and thoroughly. It is in this historical context that Locke, the British bourgeois thinker and founder of liberalism, put forward the idea of "separation of powers", that is, the legislative, executive, and external powers are held by different state institutions, of which the executive power is exercised by the king (monarch), but according to the decision of the Parliament; Legislative power is exercised by an elected parliament; External power is still exercised by the monarch.

It can be seen that Locke's "separation of powers" is actually "separation of powers", the monarch holds a broader and vital power, and Locke's "separation of powers" is not a division of power within the bourgeoisie, but the sharing of power between two different classes. It is clearly different from the "separation of powers" later practiced by the French and American bourgeoisie in both form and content.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and the United States and France have a separation of powers.

Definitely not. The British political system is complex in the world. However, it is not the separation of powers, the so-called separation of powers means that the three departments jointly hold the state power, and these three departments check each other.

And the real power in Britain is the cabinet, and the head of the cabinet is the prime minister. The Cabinet is accountable to Parliament, but Parliament is not accountable to the Cabinet. The main powers in Britain are mainly the cabinet and parliament. Of the three powers, the parliament holds two powers.

Although the House of Lords of the British Parliament is legislated, the House of Lords has very few powers, and the real power is in the House of Commons. The House of Lords and the House of Commons are a whole, not separate departments. It's not a separation of powers.

In the United States, the judicial, the legislative, and the executive are all in the hands of three different departments, and these three departments are mutually restrictive, and each has the power to deny the other. And the British Cabinet is unlikely to deny Parliament. @