Which system is the best?

>>78543139
>Spain
>Unitary

what the fuck
we have literal autonomous regions that do whatever they want
spain itself doesn't even control healthcare and education

blue system >>> green system

Purple.

>>78543139
>blue >>>>>>>>> green

I wish our states were more independent.
We never left the monarchy mindset behind.

>>78543139
It depends on the size of course. Also the presence of minorities.

Austria being a federation is retarded for example.

I'm not sure if the Netherlands in really unitary.

Our provinces are free to make any rule they want. And so are our cities. As long as they don't contradict a higher rule.
The American system is even derived from ours.

I thought Germany is unitary?

>>78543139
>argentina
>federalism
TOP KEK LMAO LOLE

>>78543537
nope we are federal

>>78543531
*I'm not sure if the Netherlands is really unitary.

>The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces. They took from the Dutch Republic the idea of a "sovereign union of sovereign states". They also took from the Dutch example the need for political and administrative power to be exercised and interlocked at different levels: local, regional and national.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_government_of_the_Dutch_Republic#Influence

>>78543139
argentina? really?

Federal

>>78543210
>>78543531
The distinction between Unitary and Federal is not technical, it's just ideological.

In a Unitary State, the sovereignty is the central State only. Eventual competencies that lower entities (such as regions) have are devolved by the Central State to them.

In a federal state the sovereignty is of the Federation, which received the right to behave as a sovereign entity by its constituent parties.

The distinction is only based on who gives the legitimacy to act as a sovereign entity to whom.
Of course a federal State must be composed of sub-entities that have certain competencies, but the very same thing can happen in unitary States, just with different names.

>>78543139
>Blue
africa tier t b h

>>78543139
In what way is an indivisible federation not a unitary state

>>78543670
Officially a federation, defacto unitarist

>>78543810
Our provinces elect our national senators. But our national politicians have no direct power over our provinces or cities.

So the list is really arbitrary.

>>78544105
The only reason why we aren't a federation is because we have a King.
But Canada and Australia have a queen, but apparently they are federal.

>>78543139
In low diversity countries a unitary system is preferable while diverse countries function better with a federal system.

>>78543531
>Our provinces are free to make any rule they want.
>As long as they don't contradict a higher rule.
There you have it. In a unitary system the power comes from above. In other words, the provinces can do what the state allows them to, the nation is sovereign.

In a federation it's the other way around: the federal government can do what the individual states permit them. Power comes from below.

This is why the Netherlands universally has a drinking age of 16 and uniform criminal law while in America the drinking age varies from 16 to 21 per state and an offense that gets you life imprisonment in one state gets you the death penalty in another. The states have decided that they wish to regulate these things themselves rather than letting the government decide it for them. On the other hand, in the Netherlands the national government decides it allows the provinces to decide some things for themselves (and can always decide to forcibly harmonize things across the country at a later date).

>>78544239
>This is why the Netherlands universally has a drinking age of 16 and uniform criminal law while in America the drinking age varies from 16 to 21 per state
But in the meantime you see Amsterdam ignoring the drug laws, squatting laws, refugee regulations, traffic laws and they threatened to ignore the weed pass law.
The national government is not in charge over what's being enforced. The city mayors are.

>>78544374
>The national government is not in charge over what's being enforced. The city mayors are.
Did you read what I typed, nigger? The city mayors can decide that because the national government decided that.

I'll repeat it once again so even you can understand it: in a unitary state, the provinces can do what the government allows them to do. In a federation, the federal government can do what the state allows them to do.

>>78543139
>Third world:
Green

>First world:
Blue

>Second world:
Pink

>>78544435
But what your saying is not the case here. Our provinces and cities are free to make any law.

They just can't override a preexisting higher law.

>>78544681
>Our provinces and cities are free to make any law.
Stop being a fucking idiot for like five seconds, will you?

http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Provinciewet.html#782
Article 143 does state that the Provincial States can adopt any local legislation that does not contradict the law. Article 143 of the Provinciewet. Which the national lawgiver has adopted and can amend as they please. Unlike the US Constitution, which regulates the competences of the Federal Government. The US Constitution can only be changed by a supermajority in Congress, with its highest chamber having 2 representatives for each state. In other words, if the states disagree the constitution cannot be changed, but the Provinciewet can be amended or even abolished without the provinces and its institutions having a single say in it.

>>78544934
The Dutch senate (eerste kamer) is elected by politicians from our provinces.
If they don't agree the national government cannot change any regulations either.

How is that any different?

>>78545003
We literally have 75 people sitting their representing our provinces. Checking if things are constitutional, aka check if what the parliament and government do is within their mandate.

>>78543510
Why? The size is irrelevant.

>>78545003
>How is that any different?
Because the First Chamber does not represent the provinces. They are not representatives sent to defend the interests of provinces (unlike the Senators who do defend the interests of their states), they're just indirectly elected. It's a pretty non-sense system though.

>Checking if things are constitutional
Even more evidence you have no idea what you're talking about. Read article 120 of our constitution: checking if the acts of parliament and the government are in accordance with the constitution is literally anti-constitutional (and even if it weren't that'd be up to a judge, not the First Chamber). The First Chamber, much like the Second Chamber, simply votes to accept or reject a proposed law.

>>78545214
Probably because it's easier to rule everything in a centralized manner in a small country, while a larger one almost requires more local autonomy. You can't expect someone in St. Peterburg to know and understand exactly what's going on in the local economy of Vladivostok for example.

>>78543139
Argentina is Federal by name and Unitary by practice
truly a shame desu

>>78545248
>checking if the acts of parliament and the government are in accordance with the constitution is literally anti-constitutional
That only goes for judges. Because they cannot perform the role of a politician. It's the role of politicians to take the constitution into account.
The senate has to check if the law is consistent with the other laws, which includes the constitution.

>>78543139
>ywn see a glorious federal girondin french republic
why live

>>78545248
And about your first lines. The distinctive factors of both chambers are not only what they can do, but who also who elect them.

It's a bit hypocritical to acknowledge that the parliament is elected by the people, but ignore that the senate is elected by the provinces. Because their dependency relationship forces them into a representative role.

>>78545599
>That only goes for judges.
Meaning that the constitution effectively loses value. Luckily there are treaties like the EVRM in place that effectively give judges the same power.

>Because their dependency relationship forces them into a representative role.
That's far from the case. The US Senate is directly elected by the people of the states in question and not appointed by a governor or something.

Now let's look at the competences of the First Chamber and how they clash with the idea that they represent the provinces. Let's use the First Chamber's own website for this.
https://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/wat_doet_de_eerste_kamer_2

>They cannot amend a bill, only reject or accept it (meaning they can't cut out things deemed unfavorable for the states, unlike the US Senate)
>The First Chamber claims that it will generally be restrictive in its interference with the bills coming out of the First Chamber. Unlike the highly critical US Senate (with that critical attitude being part of their duty in representing the states)
And here's the death blow to your thesis:
https://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/eerste_kamerverkiezingen
>Not every member of the provincial states has an equal vote, the votes of the provinces are proportionate to the population within said province [unlike the Senate, where Hawaii and California have an equal number of voters]
They are to act in the interests of the Dutch people at large (as evidenced first and foremost but not exclusively by their proportionality). If they were supposed to represent the interests of the individual provinces, the system would be horribly broken.

>>78543537

>Bundesrepublik Deutschland
>Bundesrepublik
>Federal republic

>>78543139
Unitary, by far. Every state having their own dumb fuck laws is retarded, especially when most states are made up of dumb hicks. It made sense 200 years ago, when there were separatists movements everywhere, but now it's outdated. Federal only promotes division and dumbfuckery.

>>78546207
You could also argue the American system is broken instead. Because their senate is not elected by people who represent the state as an entity.
So who do those American senators really represent? The people or the state? (rhetorical question)

And that they can only block or pass laws is exactly what showcases their role as guardians of the constitution. They are only supposed to intervene when things become truly unconstitutional. When they step outside the boundaries of the mandate of the people and provinces.

But Im afraid we wont agree on this all.

>>78543139
federal for big countries, unitary for small countries

>>78546967
When you want to change the constitution their role also suddenly becomes more apparent as the voting will occur in a meeting with both chambers combined.

>>78547131
As their role is clearly to lean back and step forward when the constitution is at stake.

>>78543139
It depends on the country. If you've got a homogeneous, relatively small country, then obviously you want a unitary system. If your country is massive or diverse, then federal makes more sense.