Leaders 9B
ritons pridethemselvesontheir“unwritten”constitution.
America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in
black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has
blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil
war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an
evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sover-
eign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the
world that its style of government was built on solid foundations
laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.
That view is out of date. The remorseless logic of Brexit has
shoved a stick of constitutional dynamite beneath the United
Kingdom—and, given the difficulty of constitutional reform in a
country at loggerheads, there is little that can be done to defuse
it. The chances are high that Britons will soon discover that the
constitution they counted on to be adaptable and robust can in
fact amplify chaos, division and the threat to the union.
On June 10th, three days after Theresa May steps down as Con-
servative leader, the race to succeed her will formally begin (see
Britain section). Some of the runners, including the favourite,
Boris Johnson, vow that, unless the European Union gives them
what they want (which it won’t), they will pull out of the euon
October 31st without a deal. The 124,000 members of the Conser-
vative Party who will choose the next prime minister, an unrep-
resentative sample, to put it mildly, will thus
take it upon themselves to resolve the question
that has split the nation down the middle.
Worse, Britain’s supposedly sovereign Par-
liament has voted against just such a no-deal
Brexit on the ground that it would do the coun-
try grave harm. There will doubtless be more
parliamentary machinations to stop a no-deal
Brexit or force one through. The constitution is
unclear on whether the executive or Parliament should prevail.
It is unclear how to even choose between them.
Behind this uncertainty lies the fact that Britain’s constitu-
tion is a jumble of contradictions scattered across countless
laws, conventions and rules. As our Briefing this week describes,
these can easily be amended, by a vote in Parliament or merely
on the say-so of the controversial Speaker of the House of Com-
mons—who this week vowed to stay in office in order to ensure
that Parliament’s voice is heard. There was a time when most
British lawmakers were mindful that playing fast and loose with
the rules could undermine democracy. Perhaps that is why they
used to practise self-restraint. But in recent decades, when liber-
al democracy seemed unshakable, Britain’s leaders forgot their
caution. Instead, in a fit of absent-mindedness, they set about re-
inventing the constitution wholesale.
Under Tony Blair and David Cameron, the Westminster Par-
liament ceded power to assemblies in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland and to the people directly through referen-
dums. These innovations were often well-meant and, in them-
selves, desirable. But nobody gave much thought to the conse-
quences for the constitution as a whole.
The resulting mess has already stamped its mark on Brexit.
The referendum endorsed leaving the eubut left the details forlater.It provideda mandateforBrexit,butnotforany of the very
different forms Brexit can take. It is unclear how mps should rec-
oncile their duty to honour the referendum with the duty of each
one of them to act in the best interests of their constituents. Oth-
er countries avoid that mistake. Ireland holds referendums, too.
But Article 46 of its constitution is clear: the people vote on a
change only after a bill has passed through the Dail with the de-
tails nailed down. Britain never thought to be so sensible.
Brexit is itself sowing the seeds of further constitutional cha-
os, by threatening the integrity of the union. In the elections for
the European Parliament (see next leader), the Scottish National
Party (snp) won an increased share of the poll. Scotland voted Re-
main in the referendum, and the snp’s leaders can understand-
ably claim that they have just won an enhanced mandate to leave
the United Kingdom. Yet, at least one of the Tory leadership can-
didates is ruling out any further referendums.
Breaking up the union would be a constitutional night-
mare—if only because no process for secession is laid down.
Merely choosing to hold a second Scottish referendum could be
fraught. Mr Johnson is loathed north of the border. Plenty of Eng-
lish voters are calling for a second Brexit referendum. Mrs May
told the snpto wait until Brexit had been resolved. Legally, could
Prime Minister Johnson hold the line against a determined Scot-
tish campaign? It is unclear.
The very act of leaving the euwould also load
the constitution with fresh doubts. The Charter
of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines eu
citizens’ rights in law, would no longer govern
British courts. Some would-be Tory leaders,
such as Dominic Raab, want to scrap domestic
legislation that embeds those rights. If Parlia-
ment passed oppressive new laws, the courts
might complain, but they could not stop it. Voters who moan
about meddling European judges might start to have second
thoughts. Cue calls for a British Bill of Rights and another fit of
ill-considered constitutional innovation.
And that leads to a final worry. Britain’s ramshackle, easily
amended constitution is vulnerable to the radicalised politics
produced by three years spent rowing about Brexit. Jeremy Cor-
byn and his colleagues on the hard left could not be clearer about
their ambitions to revolutionise Britain. It is naive to think they
would focus on the economy and public spending, but leave the
rules alone. A Labour government under Mr Corbyn—or, for that
matter, a Conservative government led by a populist Tory—
would be constrained only by its ability to get its way in Parlia-
ment. Labour has already called for a constitutional convention.
Most Britons seem blithely unaware of the test ahead. Per-
haps they believe that their peculiar way of doing things always
leads to stability. It is indeed just possible that their constitu-
tion’s infinite flexibility will permit a compromise that gets the
country through the Brexit badlands. More likely, however, it
will feed claims that the other lot are cheats and traitors.
Brexit has long been a political crisis. Now it looks destined to
become a constitutional crisis, too. It is one for which Britain is
woefully underprepared. 7The next to blow
Brexit is already a political crisis. Sooner or later it will become a constitutional one, tooLeaders