In Britain I think you underestimate the value of muddling through. The importance of 'reasonable' when judging actions. The collective sense that the law comes from the people and is established and evolves over time with the implicit sense that it can be justifiable to break a law imposed on you without your say (eg poll tax) or for the law itself to be judged wrong because of common sense or changing mores. This all looks quite haphazard from outside, but it's a pretty robust way of building a society of consent among competing ideas, deciding what is right or wrong (fair) based on principles rather than the letter of the law and managing all the difficult edge cases.
The European view is much more theoretical (Descartian) and code based (Napoleon). The law is logic and every action needs a law to define it. Society needs to be planned an ordered by the best logicians. Since these people are the best, and they are logical there can be no question that they are right. If there is no law then it must be created and overseen. If in doubt, the law is right. To prevent illegal (and illogical) action all actions must be documented so that if there is ever a mistake, the mistake must be tracked to its source and the illogicality removed. There is nothing that cannot be solved with just another piece of paper and top logical minds.