british constitutional miasma
DESCRIPTION
Agulhas Director Marcus Cox discusses BrexitTRANSCRIPT
British Constitutional Miasma
The Brexit mess reveals something that I have long suspected: that the UK
government has no appreciation of constitutional principle. British public lawyers have
always been rather proud of the fact that, instead of a written constitution, they have a
set of conventions stretching back into hallowed antiquity. Written constitutions are for
new-fangled states, like the US – a bit like trainer wheels on a bike. We have the
mother of parliaments, thank you very much. Over 40 years, the EU has become part of the UK constitution in profound ways – it
affects the sovereignty of parliament and the structure of the legal system; it is written
into the devolution of powers; it underpins the Good Friday agreement in Northern
Ireland.
Countries that bother to write their constitutions down include special procedures for
changing them. In the US, amendments must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in
Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states. In Canada, a change must be
passed by the parliament, the Senate and at least 7 provinces, representing at least
50% of the population. In Australia, changes must be approved by a double majority:
a majority of the population, and a majority of the population in a majority of states. I’m
simplifying slightly, but you get the idea.
There is a good reason why constitutions are made hard to change. At the
constitutional level, you need to take change very seriously. You want the process to
take time, so the proposed change is examined on its merits from every possible angle.
You want to make sure that there is a broad consensus underlying the change. You
want to elevate constitutional matters above the cut and thrust of daily politics. Above
all else, you want to avoid casually damaging the constitutional fabric of the state.
What now seems so astonishing about the Brexit referendum is just how casual it was.
A hugely complicated issue with profound constitutional implications was reduced to a
simple yes/no question, put to the people by simple majority after a brief campaign.
Marcus Cox 28 June 2016
Ahugelycomplicatedissuewithprofound
constitutionalimplicationswas
reducedtoasimpleyes/noquestion
2
Where was the careful analysis of the constitutional implications – for the legal system,
for central government, for devolution and the Northern Ireland peace agreement?
(Don’t we have an Attorney-General in this country? Was he on vacation?) Why did no
one feel an obligation to define what ‘leave’ actually meant? (If we’d voted, say, to
abolish the monarchy, would we have given the public a simple yes/no question
without trying to define what Republican Britain looked like?) Where were the special
majorities, to protect the rights of the UK’s constituent nations and ensure the decision
was based on a genuine consensus?
Ask yourself this: if you set out to design a decision-making process that was
guaranteed to be hijacked by demagogues for short-term political ends, could you have
done any better than what we just witnessed?
So when they tell you that we need to respect the will of the British people, don’t buy
it. There is nothing in constitutional theory or practice around the world to suggest that
this was an appropriate way to decide a matter of profound constitutional significance.
This was an act of negligence by a government that utterly disregarded its
constitutional responsibilities. It should be challenged and resisted.
For further information on our research and analysis contact: Nigel Thornton [email protected] Catherine Cameron [email protected]
SowhentheytellyouthatweneedtorespectthewilloftheBritishpeople,don’tbuyit