The Collapse of the Constitution

Over the last few weeks, and especially the last couple of days in the wake of the referendum, I have been hearing a lot about parliamentary sovereignty. First the leavers were arguing that we needed to abandon the EU so that we could restore parliamentary sovereignty, now some remainers are saying that parliament should exercise its sovereignty to keep us in. Beyond a slogan parliament sovereignty is the cornerstone, or perhaps even the entirety, of the British constitution and I've been finding myself thinking a lot about this terminally un-sexy subject as we move into probably the biggest constitutional crisis the nation has faced in centuries.

The more romantic among us tend to see parliamentary sovereignty beginning with Magna Carta, but it only asserted itself in its modern form after the glorious revolution. The standard telling of glorious revolution is as the time we invited the Dutch king to become our king as well to keep the Catholics out of power, which is

The Bill of Rights - 1689

partially true (the Dutch didn't have a king for one thing) but misses the important point that the revolution was in fact an end to a period political chaos which has engulfed the British isles since the start of the civil war over 40 years earlier.

The conflicts that beset Britain and Ireland during the 17th century were many-fold; religious, economic, political, and many others beside. Over this period the country had experienced despotism and tyranny that led to nepotism, corruption, and popular discontent, and (for the time) unbridled democracy that had bred anarchy, religious extremism, and ultimately military dictatorship. The glorious revolution ended this period with a compromise between the two conflicting ideals of how to distribute power. No one individual would be able to rule, but neither would the people be given too much power. Instead absolute power would be passed to the many headed instruction of parliament.

In vesting sovereignty in parliament Britain had eschewed both monarchy and democracy, and in essence become a republic or "commonwealth" again, with some major tweeks from the commonwealth that had briefly existed during the civil wars, and without the actual name to avoid upsetting anyone's sensibilities. Neither the word republic nor commonwealth imply democracy, instead the words imply common ownership and common duty. Indeed it would be hard to describe Britain as democratic in any meaningful way until at most the middle of the nineteenth century, and possible not even today.

Our constitution means that we elect several hundred minor dictators in the hopes that they will act in our best interest, and a few years later we get to remove them if we feel they have failed or are getting a bit to big for their boots. It isn't a perfect system of running things, but it works as long as they remember their duty as best summed up by the words of the philosopher and MP Edmund Burke:

                "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

and in return for serving us, we get to kick him out of a job if he sacrifices too much or not enough. The crux of the constitution is that the citizens aren't in charge on any day but election day, for the duration of a parliament it is the MPs who have the final say no matter what we may think and we are simply parliament's subjects.

So what are we to do about our EU referendum? We have had referenda before but the government has either been clear that they are purely advisory, or set quorums and targets to limit the power we are granted. With this referendum it has been made clear that it was binding and that all that was required a simple majority. Now it has occurred all but a few MPs have been explicit in agreeing to its terms.

JMW Turner - The Burning of the
 Houses of  Lords and Commons

In this referendum the people have been given unbridled power and parliament has shirked its constitutional duty, its very raison d'être: to limit the impulses of the people and provide sober reflection and judgement on complex issues that an ordinary person has neither the time nor often the inclination for.  To quote Burke again:

" If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member [of parliament]  for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect."

The consequences of this dereliction of duty on the part of our MPs are becoming more obvious daily, the economy is at risk, the unity of the British nation is crumbling, and many people are regretting the way they have voted because they could not possibly hope to inform themselves of all the possible outcomes.

Although I support remain I honestly do not feel that parliament can go back on this referendum. Out of fear of the people and naked ambition they have opened Pandora's box and in doing so they may have destroyed both our nation and its constitution. Britain has never been as conservative as its stereotype suggests, it has always been a country bursting with radical ideas and riven by deep seated divisions. For better or worse these forces have been unleashed, it is impossible to say what the outcome will be.