The British Constitution Is a Mess—and It’s About to Get Worse
October 24, 2014 • From theTrumpet.com
The United Kingdom faces the biggest shake-up in over three centuries.
When Scotland voted not to leave the
Union on September 18, Britain dodged a bullet. Both the long and
short-term consequences of a Scottish exit would have been dreadful.
But now there is a new danger. Britain is about to go through its most radical period of constitutional change in over 300 years.
Britain does not have a written constitution. No one has ever sat down and actually thought through what would be the best way to order the country the way the Founding Fathers did in America. Britain does have a set of foundational principles and a method of government—something that can be called “an unwritten constitution”—that developed over the years. Some of the basic principles stretch far back into the mists of time, others are founded in the Magna Carta, and many more are routed in the Bible.
But parts have always been a bit of a muddle. One of the most fundamental principles, for example, is that Parliament cannot bind its successors—no session of Parliament can pass a law that a later session cannot undo. You could say that the first rule of the British Constitution is that Britain can have no constitution.
It is a muddle that has worked reasonably well over the years. The gradual adaption of British government to the changing times has, on the whole, created a system that is rooted in the past, yet flexible enough to face new changes.
It is also a muddle that has become worse in recent years, after the tinkering of the Labour government, and the fact that the European Union now has supremacy over British laws. But now the whole thing will be overhauled in a matter of months.
In the run-up to the Scottish referendum, as the polls looked bad, Britain’s leaders panicked. In an effort to persuade the Scots to vote “No,” the heads of Britain’s three main political parties promised to overturn the way Britain is governed by granting more powers to the Scots.
That’s not a simple change—it’s more like tugging on an errant thread that leads to the unraveling of the whole garment. The Telegraph’s chief political commentator Peter Oborne called the proposed changes the “greatest revolution in the way that Britain is governed since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.”
Can Britain’s Constitution be improved? Absolutely. There’s no question about that. The recent changes made by Labour present problems that have been ignored, not resolved. But taking mere months to overhaul a constitution that has taken 1,000 years or more to create is the real danger.
Part of the problem has been given the snooze-inducing name of “the West Lothian question.” It’s also a bit of snooze-inducing problem too, but the phrase will now be all over British political news for months, and is the catalyst for the constitutional upheaval, so it’s worth understanding fully.
The problem began when Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland) was given some powers to run its own affairs. For example, the Scottish Parliament now controls Scotland’s education system. Members of the Scottish Parliament (msps) vote on Scottish education policy. However, Scotland also sends Members of Parliament (M.P.s) to London who can vote on English education policies, even though the outcome of these votes has nothing to do with them. A few years ago, Scotland’s Labour politicians voted that Scottish university students should not pay tuition fees. Then they turned around and cast the deciding vote in favor of English students paying those same fees. They decided that British taxpayers would pay for Scottish students to go to university, but not English ones. Whatever one thinks of tuition fees, it’s not a fair arrangement.
So far the English have lived with this. As long as it affects only a few areas, like education, it’s a problem that can be ignored and swept under the carpet. But now that Britain has promised to give Scotland some powers over its taxation and spending, this contradiction can no longer be ignored.
Tax and spending are at the heart of governance. The idea that Scottish M.P.s could vote on the tax rate in England, while the English have no say on the tax rate in Scotland, is unacceptable to many English. Because of this, after the “No” verdict in the referendum, British Prime Minister David Cameron said he would change the Constitution so that only English M.P.s could vote on English laws. But this creates problems of its own.
Here’s a very likely scenario for the next general election: The left-wing Labour Party wins a majority across the UK, thanks to its support in Scotland and Wales; however, the Conservative Party has a majority in England. What happens? You’re left with a mess.
The Conservatives could block any Labour bill that did not affect Scotland, which would be most of them. Or, under an alternative arrangement, you could have the Conservatives form an English government, while Labour runs a UK government, responsible for only foreign and defense policy, and little else.
That’s a recipe for gridlock and confusion. That’s why the West Lothian question has been ignored for so many years—there’s no easy solution. What Mr. Cameron is proposing will require a complete upheaval of the British Constitution—which is why people like Peter Oborne are calling it the biggest shake-up in England’s government for over 300 years.
And Mr. Cameron promised to get all this sorted out and ready for legislation by January. This means Britain will make some of its biggest-ever constitutional changes based on a set of proposals drawn up on the back of an envelope during the Scottish Referendum and fleshed out in a mad dash with little time to think things through.
There are real dangers here. Britain’s wise elder statesman, Lord Tebbit, explains that in giving these extra powers to Scotland, “The Balkanization of this kingdom has begun.”
“Unless we wish to go the way of the Balkans, we had best work out how to reverse, rather than to accelerate it,” he concludes.
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage grasps the magnitude of what is being discussed. He has called for a constitutional convention to try to find answers to the West Lothian question—answers that, he freely admits, he does not have.
Creating a new constitution is no small thing. It took America’s Founding Fathers years to get right; their first attempt was a complete failure.
Right now, Islamic State stalks the Middle East; Russia openly threatens to overturn the post-World War ii order; an economic and political crisis threatens to change Europe forever; and Britain wants to do what America did back in the 1780s—sit down and figure out how to govern itself.
It’s like trying to rebuild a slightly problematic car engine. Get it right and it’ll run better. But rush it or mess up, and you’re left with a car that might burst into flames on the road. Meanwhile the rest of the world speeds by while Britain is busy tinkering.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure, as the adage goes, also applies to constitutions.
As Trumpet columnist Brad Macdonald wrote ahead of the referendum, Britain has no idea why it exists or why it should remain together. The Scottish referendum was a symptom of that identity crisis. Now the nation has decided it is not sure it likes the way it is governed either—Britain is gripped by a full-blown existential crisis.
Britain is not in a good position, but there is good news. For the hope, vision and purpose Britain needs, read our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. ▪
But now there is a new danger. Britain is about to go through its most radical period of constitutional change in over 300 years.
Britain does not have a written constitution. No one has ever sat down and actually thought through what would be the best way to order the country the way the Founding Fathers did in America. Britain does have a set of foundational principles and a method of government—something that can be called “an unwritten constitution”—that developed over the years. Some of the basic principles stretch far back into the mists of time, others are founded in the Magna Carta, and many more are routed in the Bible.
But parts have always been a bit of a muddle. One of the most fundamental principles, for example, is that Parliament cannot bind its successors—no session of Parliament can pass a law that a later session cannot undo. You could say that the first rule of the British Constitution is that Britain can have no constitution.
It is a muddle that has worked reasonably well over the years. The gradual adaption of British government to the changing times has, on the whole, created a system that is rooted in the past, yet flexible enough to face new changes.
It is also a muddle that has become worse in recent years, after the tinkering of the Labour government, and the fact that the European Union now has supremacy over British laws. But now the whole thing will be overhauled in a matter of months.
In the run-up to the Scottish referendum, as the polls looked bad, Britain’s leaders panicked. In an effort to persuade the Scots to vote “No,” the heads of Britain’s three main political parties promised to overturn the way Britain is governed by granting more powers to the Scots.
That’s not a simple change—it’s more like tugging on an errant thread that leads to the unraveling of the whole garment. The Telegraph’s chief political commentator Peter Oborne called the proposed changes the “greatest revolution in the way that Britain is governed since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.”
Can Britain’s Constitution be improved? Absolutely. There’s no question about that. The recent changes made by Labour present problems that have been ignored, not resolved. But taking mere months to overhaul a constitution that has taken 1,000 years or more to create is the real danger.
Part of the problem has been given the snooze-inducing name of “the West Lothian question.” It’s also a bit of snooze-inducing problem too, but the phrase will now be all over British political news for months, and is the catalyst for the constitutional upheaval, so it’s worth understanding fully.
The problem began when Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland) was given some powers to run its own affairs. For example, the Scottish Parliament now controls Scotland’s education system. Members of the Scottish Parliament (msps) vote on Scottish education policy. However, Scotland also sends Members of Parliament (M.P.s) to London who can vote on English education policies, even though the outcome of these votes has nothing to do with them. A few years ago, Scotland’s Labour politicians voted that Scottish university students should not pay tuition fees. Then they turned around and cast the deciding vote in favor of English students paying those same fees. They decided that British taxpayers would pay for Scottish students to go to university, but not English ones. Whatever one thinks of tuition fees, it’s not a fair arrangement.
So far the English have lived with this. As long as it affects only a few areas, like education, it’s a problem that can be ignored and swept under the carpet. But now that Britain has promised to give Scotland some powers over its taxation and spending, this contradiction can no longer be ignored.
Tax and spending are at the heart of governance. The idea that Scottish M.P.s could vote on the tax rate in England, while the English have no say on the tax rate in Scotland, is unacceptable to many English. Because of this, after the “No” verdict in the referendum, British Prime Minister David Cameron said he would change the Constitution so that only English M.P.s could vote on English laws. But this creates problems of its own.
Here’s a very likely scenario for the next general election: The left-wing Labour Party wins a majority across the UK, thanks to its support in Scotland and Wales; however, the Conservative Party has a majority in England. What happens? You’re left with a mess.
The Conservatives could block any Labour bill that did not affect Scotland, which would be most of them. Or, under an alternative arrangement, you could have the Conservatives form an English government, while Labour runs a UK government, responsible for only foreign and defense policy, and little else.
That’s a recipe for gridlock and confusion. That’s why the West Lothian question has been ignored for so many years—there’s no easy solution. What Mr. Cameron is proposing will require a complete upheaval of the British Constitution—which is why people like Peter Oborne are calling it the biggest shake-up in England’s government for over 300 years.
And Mr. Cameron promised to get all this sorted out and ready for legislation by January. This means Britain will make some of its biggest-ever constitutional changes based on a set of proposals drawn up on the back of an envelope during the Scottish Referendum and fleshed out in a mad dash with little time to think things through.
There are real dangers here. Britain’s wise elder statesman, Lord Tebbit, explains that in giving these extra powers to Scotland, “The Balkanization of this kingdom has begun.”
“Unless we wish to go the way of the Balkans, we had best work out how to reverse, rather than to accelerate it,” he concludes.
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage grasps the magnitude of what is being discussed. He has called for a constitutional convention to try to find answers to the West Lothian question—answers that, he freely admits, he does not have.
Creating a new constitution is no small thing. It took America’s Founding Fathers years to get right; their first attempt was a complete failure.
Right now, Islamic State stalks the Middle East; Russia openly threatens to overturn the post-World War ii order; an economic and political crisis threatens to change Europe forever; and Britain wants to do what America did back in the 1780s—sit down and figure out how to govern itself.
It’s like trying to rebuild a slightly problematic car engine. Get it right and it’ll run better. But rush it or mess up, and you’re left with a car that might burst into flames on the road. Meanwhile the rest of the world speeds by while Britain is busy tinkering.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure, as the adage goes, also applies to constitutions.
As Trumpet columnist Brad Macdonald wrote ahead of the referendum, Britain has no idea why it exists or why it should remain together. The Scottish referendum was a symptom of that identity crisis. Now the nation has decided it is not sure it likes the way it is governed either—Britain is gripped by a full-blown existential crisis.
Britain is not in a good position, but there is good news. For the hope, vision and purpose Britain needs, read our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. ▪
Literature Offer
Additional Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment