You are in:
- Contents » Liberty
A British Constitution?
Gordon Brown is thought be pondering a written constitution for Britain. It couldn't come at a worse time
In February, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said that he would like to see a written constitution for Britain within the next two decades.
On the face of it, a written constitution for the UK sounds like a good idea. It would, advocates believe, finally codify the sometimes messy "unwritten constitution" which has governed Britain since time immemorial. It would act as a "land grab", securing for eternity numerous inalienable rights which future, less enlightened governments and populations might be tempted to vote away. It would present lawmakers with the opportunity to lay out once and for all the ideal relationship between the House of Commons, the upper house (in whatever form it might take), the courts, the Monarchy and the clergy (currently the established Church of England; in future, who knows?).
Naturally, many advocates of a written Constitution might use the drafting process as a means of reforming certain anachronisms they deem unsuitable for a modern state, or "hub of ideas" - the role of the Monarchy, for one, perhaps disestablishing the Church.
First things first. A written constitution, as Britain's Solicitor General Vera Baird QC says, is some time off. This doesn't mean that it won't happen in the near future. In July, shortly after Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister, the Ministry of Justice published a document with the portentous title Governance of Britain.
The publication of this document, laying out strategic issues to make the executive "more accountable", limiting its powers and "re-invigorating our democracy" was welcome, not least because it's been a while since green papers were brought to the public attention with such fanfare. It's clearly something Brown's team had been brewing for some time.
There is much of interest in the paper. Brown proposes to hand over powers to parliament, such as the right to send troops abroad, to choose bishops, to increase parliamentary scrutiny of other appointments. There are a variety of proposals to make the executive more accountable to parliament, and a list of ways the government hopes to bring democracy and decision-making closer to the people, including continued reform of the Upper House (House of Lords).
Brown's government plans a British "statement of values": "Through an inclusive process of national debate it will work with the public to develop a British statement of values that will set out the ideals and principles that bind us together as a nation", the paper reads."This process will be a dialogue with the people of Britain and between the people of Britain. This will require time, careful coordination and planning to ensure the nation feels genuinely engaged in the debate on Britain’s values. The end point will be a British statement of values that reflects the voices of citizens across the country. The debate will also provide valuable insights into national views on citizenship and Britishness, which may be published after a period of dialogue and feedback."
Following that, a Bill of Rights ("and Duties"). This could add "specifically British rights" to the European Convention on Human Rights which the government said "should not be the last word on the subject."
"It would build on the basic principles of the Human Rights Act, but make explicit the way in which a democratic society’s rights have to be balanced by obligations."
The paper, like green papers before it, is a statement of intent and not a finished document. Indeed, it has rarely been Labour's strategy to declare reform completed, rather it is a continuous process of removal and replacement.
It speaks, however, of "the journey towards a new constitutional settlement" although it says the paper itself doesn't represent a blueprint, but "the first step in a national conversation."
At its conclusion, the Governance of Britain discusses the possibility of a new constitution.
It's fairly clear not only from the fact that a constitution is included as the final phase in the Green Paper, but that written constitutions are spoken of in such glowing terms, that the authors of the paper are desperately keen to introduce one. However, cautious voices at the fringes of the drafting party managed to insert warnings that it could take a long time to produce a British constitution.
Still, it remains the goal, and we believe that it is only a matter of time before Brown invokes a new Constitutional Settlement, in the form of a British Constitution.
Why? Because much of the stuff in the Green Paper, produced and released as Brown was rising to an unassailable lead in the polls, has been swiftly forgotten. The autumn's non-election fiasco and looming recession have taken the shine off Brown's first six months, and the intellectual colossus promising a Brave New Britain now looks bumbling, cowardly and not in control of events.
The grandiose declarations about returning power to the people and parliament seem laughable as the government wins a vote to prevent a referendum on the European Lisbon Treaty - something it appears that an overwhelming number of Britons are demanding.
Brown won't give the British a referendum on the EU Constitution - but he might well offer them the opportunity to support a new, "British Constitution", thus appearing to bring the seize the issue of who governs Britain once again.
This is a dangerous time for Britain to produce a new constitution. As EURSOC reported last week, the Lisbon Treaty has a deeply ambiguous, self-amending nature which will have a deleterious effect on national constitutions. National institutions are weakened by the Treaty, and will weaken further still as it generates new annexes in future.
Furthermore, as the report by the establishment strategy thinktank RUSI explained, a decade of ideological effort under new Labour has left Britain and its institutions seriously weakened.
A Constitution, produced under these circumstances, would be written at a time when traditional Britain is weak and Labour's "reforming" Britain, unopposed by any serious opposition party, is in a position of power. It would be disastrous.
Solicitor General Vera Baird QC, who we spoke of before, would likely be on any future Constitutional committee. Indeed, judging from the phrasing of the article in the New Statesman we link to above, EURSOC would bet she was one of the driving forces behind the "Governance of Britain" green paper.
"Labour has enacted a programme of radical constitutional reform since 1997," she writes, "with much still to do."
Keywords like modernisation, rational, coherence, integration crop up in her essay: Those things being swept away are described as "anachronistic."
Baird appears keen on a Constitution, but - summarising her(?) conclusion to the Governance Green Paper, she adds that it could be a long way off. Of course, a week is a long time in politics.
Already, preparations are being made for a British "Supreme Court", doubtless designed to fit into any future constitutional separation of powers.
The left has blown hot and cold about the idea of a British constitution for at least two decades. This year sees the anniversary of Charter 88, a British pressure group calling for consitutional reform. Drawn up at the height of the Thatcher era and taking its inspiration from Vaclav Havel's Charter 77 (what hubris, what self-regard British lefties have!) the Charter's 85,000 signatories supported a "new constitutional settlement" leading to a written constitution.
Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock claimed to have had the measure of most of those involved, denouncing them as "Wankers, whiners and whingers." However, both Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair agree in principle with many of Charter 88's demands - though Brown probably dislikes the organisation's claims that many EU nations, including all the larger ones, have "special procedures" to ratify the EU treaty, such as "super majorities". Britain will pass the Lisbon Treaty with a simple majority, which surely does not reflect the document's constitutional impact.
So who would write the British Constitution? Solicitor General Vera Baird certainly has the right stuff, at least from a New Labour perspective. From her biography:
"As a key member of Michael Mansfield’s chambers at Tooks Court since 1986, Ms Baird has taken part in some of the key civil liberties cases. She successfully defended the four women charged with Criminal Damage to a Hawk aircraft destined for bombing East Timor, has worked on cases about almost every protest movement in the last two decades from Greenham Common to Menwith Hill."
A veteran "human rights" lawyer, then, with a radical view of Britain's history and those who defend our borders. Just ideal for writing the Constitution. One can understand why Baird wants a written constitution, and take a fairly good guess at what she'd like in it.
It can be assumed that Labour has placed similar radicals in other advisory and consulting positions for the forthcoming Bill of Rights & Responsibilities and indeed the British Constitution. People who see Labour's ideological Long March of the past decade as only the "first steps" towards a New Britain, effectively cleansed of troublesome "anachronisms" and stuffy "traditions."
Imagine if every government elected to power in Britain believed it had the right to bring in wholesale constitutional reform? It would create political and constitutional turmoil in the country. Why does Labour believe its powers go beyond what decades of previous governments have done? Why does Brown's government alone believe it controls Britain's destiny?
There is much to do, they say. Their opponents could argue the same is true for them.
