Brexit: Illuminating Weaknesses in the British Constitution
The 2016 Brexit referendum and the events that followed put pressure on the UK’s Constitutional structure. Ministerial decisions to prorogue parliament as well as their interpretation of conventions during the process of Brexit has raised concerns and led to many questions surrounding the,
‘Peculiarly improvised nature of the UK Constitution’ (Weale, 2018)
What type of constitution does the UK have?
The UK is a known to have an uncodified constitution. Unlike other countries, the UK constitution is a combination of written and unwritten sources that have evolved over centuries. In the UK, parliament is sovereign; therefore, for the constitution to be upheld, it must continue to operate as a check and balance on other powers. These are the additional sources of the UK constitution, which when taken as a whole, help to build a constitution that can change and evolve alongside society.
- Common Law (Developed through Judicial review)
- Constitutional Conventions (Guiding behaviours of constitutional actors)
- Royal Perogatives (Certain powers historically exercised by the Monarch, but are now handed to the Prime Minister)
Brexit, however, led to an imbalance of power between the sources of the constitution. The prorogation of parliament in 2019 resulted in the misuse of royal prerogatives, allowing the executive branch to exert excessive control over the interpretation of the constitution in order to manipulate the Brexit discussions according to their own preferences.The vagueness of the UK Constitution is essentially what made particular actions obtainable for politicians at the time.
What exactly showed weakness of the British Constitution:
On the 24th September 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was “unlawful” and “unconstitutional”
‘The sovereignty of Parliament would, however, be undermined as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased.’ (Davis, 2019)
The House of Commons determined that reaching an agreement on a Withdrawal Deal with the EU during the Brexit negotiations was not feasible. The executive, challenged with creating and passing a withdrawal deal before the deadline on January 31st 2020, decided to suspend parliament for five weeks. For the Prime Minister to be able to silence parliament, it required the Queen to conform to advice given to her by her ministers, act on her Royal Perogatives, and close parliament.
The need for the Queen to maintain her impartiality and avoid becoming involved in politics has long been a cornerstone of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom. The Queen will tenaciously work to uphold that concept, but when her ministers formally advise her on matters of Royal prerogative – the executive powers that ministers exercise on her behalf – she depends on them to do the same.
Many have questioned whether our unwritten constitution is appropriate in light of the manipulation of traditional roles. If nation’s leaders have the chance to act “illegally,” and “frustrate the ability of parliament to carry out ins constitutional functions,’ then perhaps there should be formal guidelines on the distribution of power.
Why this has led to a desire for a written constitution?
As Andrew amble writes,
‘What is distinctive about British Politics is that its traditional constitution is increasingly a source of instability rather than stability.’ (Gamble, 2016)
Brexit has simply indicated that when governmental powers and procedures lack a written source, then it is susceptible to manipulation, often justified as new interpretation.
The UK’s recent political crises have been made worse by this ambiguity. For instance, the precise legal standing of referendums has never been established. Referendums have not historically been seen as part of the UK constitution; Clement Attlee famously called them “the instruments of Nazism and fascism” and “alien to our traditions.” (Peat, 2019)
Do referendums easily sit with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty?
The UK constitution has never firmly establish laws and procedures, as there had only been four referendums prior to 1997. Again, referendums were ambiguous, which only serves to confirm the theory that the difficulty of the Brexit negotiations was caused by a lack of unwritten rules.
To summarise:
The government’s attempt to negotiate an exit agreement from the EU revealed the flaws in the British constitution.
Because the constitution is unwritten, there are no rules, which resulted in ministerial decisions taken to limit the authority of parliament and interpreting the constitution generally to suit the executive branch’s goals in the event of a no-deal leave
Brexit demonstrated the ease with which the government may subvert the UK constitution, which is the text and customs that preserve democracy and rights.
Reference list
Davis, F. (2019). Decision of the Supreme Court on the Prorogation of Parliament. commonslibrary.parliament.uk. [online] Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/ [Accessed 25 Jan. 2024].
Gamble, A. (2016). What’s British about British politics? In: R. Heffernan, C. Hay, M. Russell and P. Cowley, eds., Developments in British Politics, 10th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.3–17.
Peat, J. (2019). This Clement Attlee quote on referendums is going viral. [online] The London Economic. Available at: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/this-clement-attlee-quote-on-referendums-is-going-viral-158618/ [Accessed 25 Jan. 2024].
Weale, A. (2018). Brexit and the improvised constitution. In: B. Martial and U. Staiger, eds., Brexit and Beyond. [online] University College Londin: UCL Press, pp.22–28. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10041784/1/Brexit-and-Beyond.pdf [Accessed 2024].
The author makes a number of interesting and thought-provoking points on how Brexit affected the UK in the face of lacking its own constitution. When the UK was part of the EU, a number of our laws and practices were subject to those put in place by the European Union. When we left, several areas became ambiguous and the British government had to begin the long mission of filling in the blanks. As noted by Jonathan Pratt, ‘EU Law has been consistently removed from, then restored in some different form, into UK Domestic Law’. He also states that, ‘Contrary to government announcements in 2017 of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ of EU Laws, most existing substantive EU-derived law was in fact preserved’. If the UK had its own codified constitution, it would not be relying on the International Institution from which it withdrew to help be the foundation for new laws in a Post-Brexit Britain. The relationship between the UK and the EU formed an intertwined system of purely British legislation as well as European. In the absence of a UK Constitution, it has made the separation of these two more complicated and this has to led to so much influence of EU Law remaining. As the author of this post lists, Brexit demonstrated how the British government is able to work around issues in any way they want as they are not tied to any regulations or sections of a constitution. If the UK were to have a written constitution – it would no longer allow so much polarity for the Executive.
this blog caught my attention from the very beginning with its catchy headline that immediately made me want to keep reading. I liked how the author didn’t immediately jump into the reasons why Brexit has illuminated weaknesses in the British constitution, but took the time to actually explain what this specific constitution is and how it differs from other countries. the blog delved into the sources of the constitution and provided an explanation for each which is extremely helpful for those reading who do not know that much about the topic. The Queens’ suspension of Parliament over Boris Johnson is the perfect example to solidify the points made in this blog post particularly because the consequences of this action showcase how weak the constitution can sometimes be- the Queen was forced to act on advice of ministers who were acting under Johnson and carried out his wishes to close Parliament despite this not being the correct decision. to solidify their argument further, the author could consider how the government feels about referendums vs how the British people feel, particularly after Brexit because such a tiny majority won the vote, so how do the huge minority of those who voted remain feel?
The first quote used in this article that describes the UK Constitution as ‘peculiarly improvised’ caught my attention. In the wider debate about codified and uncodified constitutions, the UK serves as a prime example of how a state with an uncodified constitution runs. There are a number of routes in order to change or add to the UK Constitution including but not limited to soft law, legal precedent, statute law, common law, and political norms and conventions. As the Constitution can be changed by passing a law through Parliament, or the interpretation of the Supreme Court, it is more easily changed in comparison to the amendment processes of states with codified constitutions such as the United States or France. While this adaptability can be seen as a strength that allows the UK to address contemporary issues in a timely manner, others see delayed amendment processes as a safeguard that prevents the state from making hasty decisions. Adding to the discussion of ambiguity addressed in the article, an uncodified constitution lacks core guiding principles for the UK. As the article explains, this leaves the Constitution vulnerable to manipulation in the name of interpretation. In this way, one could argue that the Constitution is ‘improvised’ based on the whims of the majority party in order to further their goals, rather than what is in the best interest of the state and the public. On top of this, the lack of defined principles to refer back to when interpreting the Constitution results in a lack of uniting principles for the culture of UK politics. While there is a distinct political culture in the UK, it is largely based on the aspect of devolved nations and the two party system. However, a written list of principles and rights of which to guide governance could have a unifying effect on political culture in the UK and improved accountability within the government and Parliament.
The example provided in this blog post showing that “ministerial decisions (were) taken to limit the authority of parliament and interpreting the constitution generally to suit the executive branch’s goals” is not even the only example of this surrounding Brexit, showing just how true this statement is. The Miller vs Secretary of State (2017) case for Exiting the European Union also highlights this issue, where the Supreme Court found that the government did not have the authority to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, which would initiate the process of leaving the EU, without parliamentary approval. The Cameron government had tried to argue that this was government prerogative, and the executive had intended to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary debate after the referendum. This case, as well as the example examined throughout this blog post, showcases the need for more clarity around the division of powers between the UK executive and parliament, especially in matters of constitutional significance, which, with an uncodified constitution, may prove difficult to achieve.
The most intriguing part of this post is the consistent suggestion of the manipulation and the alterations of the British constitution as a means of aligning with the ideologies of British politicians in their approach to Brexit. Despite the clear underlying weaknesses of the British constitution it should be recognised that these issues cannot simply be fixed by codifying the British constitution. It should be appreciated that the UK constitution allows for a more evolved and flexible approach to politics. The author uses a Gamble quote suggesting instability is built upon the fact the UK lacks a written constitution. This can be challenged through looking at the US who possess a codified constitution yet inherent instability remains. I think it is important to dwell on the fact the constitution is Uncodified to allow for a flexible and less rigid form of politics. It is rather a display of weakness and inability from the politicians as opposed to the structures in place. The case the author presents does further the fact that it is hard to achieve both a flexible style of governance alongside a clear separation of powers, which have the ability to scrutinise each other.
The author immediately engaged my attention through the informative title of the blog. Furthermore, the thesis of the blog remained true to its name, as the author consistently related back to both their title and their thesis throughout, engaging with key examples reflecting their argument. The author highlights key aspects of the UK’s uncodified constitution, demonstrating how within this style of constitution, traditional roles and practices can be manipulated and bypassed. The example used of Boris Johnson suspending Parliament, through misinforming Queen Elizabeth II was an apt example of this, demonstrating the implications of an unclear constitution on the running of government, and how the flexibility of the UK Constitution can be manipulated for personal gain. Furthermore, it demonstrates the instability of the constitution in terms of regulating executive power. The Monarch’s consent to the suspension was pre-ordained , due to its’ role as Executive in Principle, and the need for the Crowns’ impartiality in politics; Royal Assent is guaranteed and not based off the individual choices of the Monarch. Issues surrounding the constitution in regards to Brexit raises a number of discrepancies and flaws within the unwritten constitution. The absence of inalienable rights for citizens is a key flaw in the constitution. While this has always been a worrying aspect, when combing this issue with Brexit and its wide reaching impacts, it becomes more so. Brexit has countless consequences in regards to our economy, travel and trade agreements, the absence of irreproachable rights in recognition of this, is in my opinion concerning. Furthermore, evidence of Boris Johnson’s misleading and misinformation of the Monarch, demonstrates that boundaries are easily overstepped in politics, regardless of morals. Overall the author has utilised clear structure and running theme, whilst providing key examples and utilising relevant and engaging information. The author has suggested key issues with the UK constitution in relation to Brexit and overall has produced an informative article.
The author presents an informative contribution on describing and explaining the UK’s uncodified constitution. Touching on how this impacts parliamentary sovereignty, highlighting how this impacts traditional practices and how they are undertaken. I particularly liked how the author doesn’t go straight in with the analysis of how the uncodified constitution affected the Brexit deal, but rather discusses what this means for parliamentary sovereignty before moving onto this fact. They make strong points to highlight the misuse of royal prerogatives during the Brexit campaign, to manipulate the discussion. This leads onto questions on how the Brexit agreement may have differed had the UK had a codified constitution, while also sparking the debate on this.
The author begins the blog post by immediately drawing close attention to the detrimental effects Brexit has caused for the UK’s constitutional Framework in their introductory paragraph. As we are made aware by the blog post, the UK leaned heavily on the European Union’s ideal Framework, especially regarding the importance of upholding human rights. Unfortunately, the author neglected to mention the importance of having human rights written into law, that being a part of the European Union provided for the UK. However, the author goes on to lay the blog post out excellently, using headlines to break the blog post into sections, drawing attention to the most important points being made. Helping to narrow the specificity of the blog post, making it easy to read and hold the attention of the reader. The author also highlights that overall, the UK does not have a written constitution, however, does have a small section of written sources that the UK government leans upon as being somewhat of a possible written constitution that can be built upon or evolve overtime due to societal changes like ‘common law’ and ‘constitutional conventions.’ Which may not have been known information for the common reader, making it useful to mention. The author also highlighting the continuous ambiguity of not having a written constitution or framework, as it would be able to provide a stable consensus for all. As the UK government neglected this area in political discourse as the European Union was able to fill this void. The author also highlights throughout the blog post, that because the UK government has no written constitution it must uphold and align with. The government and its executive continuously have the ability only to serve their own interests not societies, which the author depicts by the ‘no-deal’ situation that was ongoing and destroying ties with the European Union and its member states. Overall, in agreeance with the author, having a written constitution would prevent polarity in UK governance and allow for society to hold our government to account as it is a key weakness in our political discourse.
This blog post is very insightful, making a practical issue in politics relevant to the British constitution. It highlights the temperamental nature of the Constitution. Although I agree that due to the constitution being uncodified it can lead to manipulation by MPs and politicians, this does not mean a written constitution would be a good replacement. Issues with codified constitutions can be seen in the US which is hard to change. The UK constitution can constantly be changed leading to more fluidity in laws. Although many strong points are made about the volatility of the constitution which Brexit has revealed, it could discuss some more positives of a codified constitution. As well as this, images and graphs including visual data such as polls could create a more cohesive piece. However, overall, this blog post is very interesting and creates an interesting debate surrounding the British constitution.
In this blog post the author makes a number of interesting arguments about how the unwritten UK constitution is resulting in a wave of instability in the government. The use of Brexit helped to highlight the problems which the UK is facing with not having a written constitution as those in power manipulate it to fit what they want, by codifying the constitution it would bring clarity to the public and hold the government accountable for what they do. However, when thinking about whether a written one would fix this problem it is harder to say as it would be very difficult to decide what goes in it but also how it is written and who is included when writing it, like does the general public get a say?
When looking at writing blog posts in the future the author should maybe look at making the headings of each section a bit clearer so that the post as a whole is easier to read. Pictures could also be included to further improve. As a whole this blog post was very insightful about the UK constitution and how Brexit has highlighted its weaknesses. It raises the question as to whether anything will be done in the future or will it just be kept the same?
The author immediately engaged my attention through the informative title of the blog. Furthermore, the thesis of the blog remained true to its name, as the author consistently related back to both their title and their thesis throughout, engaging with key examples reflecting their argument. The author highlights key aspects of the UK’s uncodified constitution, demonstrating how within this style of constitution, traditional roles and practices can be manipulated and bypassed. The example used of Boris Johnson suspending Parliament through misinforming Queen Elizabeth II, was an apt example of this. By demonstrating the implications of an unclear constitution on the running of government, the author has shown how the flexibility of the UK Constitution can be manipulated for personal gain. Furthermore, they have demonstrated the instability of the constitution in terms of regulating executive power. The Monarch’s consent to the suspension of Parliament is pre-ordained, due to its’ role as Executive in Principle, and the need for the Crowns’ impartiality in politics. To put simply, Royal Assent is guaranteed and not based off the individual choices of the Monarch. Issues surrounding the constitution in regard to Brexit has shone light on a number of discrepancies and flaws within the unwritten constitution. The absence of inalienable rights for citizens is one such oversight, While this has always been a worrying aspect, comparing this issue with Brexit and its wide-reaching impacts highlights this further. Brexit has countless consequences in regard to our economy, travel and trade agreements, and the absence of irreproachable rights. Furthermore, evidence of Boris Johnson’s misleading and misinformation of the Monarch demonstrates that boundaries are easily overstepped in politics, regardless of morals. Overall, the author has utilised clear structure and running theme, whilst providing key examples and utilising relevant and engaging information. The author has suggested key issues with the UK constitution in relation to Brexit and overall has produced an informative article.
What a fascinating blog post. The introduction outlines the main point of the blog post and contextualises it well by describing the constitutional layout of the UK.
It is interesting to learn how Brexit caused an imbalance of power and later resulted in the misuse of prerogative powers in 2019 by the Conservative Party to further their agenda on Brexit. There was good detail on the implications of this imbalance of power in the discussion regarding the appropriateness of an unwritten constitution.
There was a clear conclusion that raised important questions, such as whether the UK should work towards a codified constitution, as some already believe: https://consoc.org.uk/why-the-uk-needs-a-written-constitution/
The author’s argument that the ambiguity of the UK’s uncodified constitution can lead to abuses of power has merit, however many argue that this ambiguity and flexibility is necessary for the functioning of the UK government. Additionally, the author mentions Parliamentary Sovereignty, but does not explain how the UK would reconcile this idea with a codified constitution. It is difficult to imagine the possibility where the UK has both the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty and a codified constitution given that the constitution would likely be a greater power than Parliament. It is unclear whether a codified constitution is the most effective solution to the challenges currently facing the UK. It would mark a drastic shift in the function of government. While the challenges of an uncodified constitution may have prompted the desire for a written constitution, the reality of creating this document bears further examination.
https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/41/4/965/6262073#318745480
Whilst the process of Brexit following the 2016 Referendum has undoubtedly highlighted the flaws of the UK’s unwritten constitution, it is important to consider that the flexibility and adaptability that the UK constitution is based around also has its merits. The absence of a rigidly codified constitution allows for the natural evolution of British governance, capable of adapting to changes in society and culture as needed, ensuring that the Government of the day can effectively legislate as needed.
It could be contended that the perceived issues with the British constitution during Brexit were not just due to it being unwritten, but also a reflection of wider political turmoil posed by the outcome of the referendum. As such, the focus on the codification of the constitution as a solution overlooks the underlying complications of modern political policymaking.
Furthermore, whilst referendums and votes can and often introduce an unwanted, opaque ambiguity into the constitutional framework, they also serve as a tool for direct democratic input, providing the population with a mechanism to directly influence major policy decisions. This interactive aspect of governance should not be dismissed, as it contributes to the legitimacy of the democratic and political process.
Rather than advocating for just a move towards a written constitution, a potentially more nuanced approach lies in strengthening the institutional mechanisms that the British constitution already possesses, enhancing transparency, and promoting a culture of accountability.
This blog post on the relationship between Brexit and the British Constitution was a thought-provoking analysis on the weaknesses of the constitution, particularly its uncodified nature. I was impressed by the time taken to explain the constitution itself and its features. Through examples such as Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament in 2019, the author effectively highlights the ambiguity and vagueness of an uncodified constitution, and the effects this had on the Brexit process. However, this also raises the question of whether a codified constitution would be a more suitable alternative. Issues over who would write it, and the long and arduous process of amendments are reasons as to why many in the UK would be opposed. Overall, this blog post is an insightful assessment of the UK’s constitution and the weaknesses it brings with, using an example of Brexit to highlight its easily manipulated interpretations.
This blog post gives a good account of the current British constitution and how it works while effectively organising its points well to construct how the constitution differs from other other countries constitutions and explaining the constitutions weaknesses. The Example of Boris Johnson’s prorogue of parliament was very effective for the authors argument while also encouraging engagement from the reader. The author ultimately uses Brexit and the ministerial circumvents around the constitution to highlight the current flaws within the current constitution, arguing that there is an alternative a codified constitution. The author could add to this by explains how a codified constitution would be designed and made, how would it be decided? Would we vote in a referendum for a codified constitution?
The author is right in saying that, without a codified constitution, ministers may find it easier than in countries with codified constitutions to subvert constitutional norms. However, it is simply wrong to say that, in the absence of a codified constitution, “there are no rules”. The author mentions the example of the Johnson government unlawfully advising Her Late Majesty to prorogue Parliament during Brexit debates. This was indeed an example of the executive attempting to exploit the UK’s unwritten constitution for its own gain, but the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the advice was unlawful, demonstrating that there are constitutional safeguards and conventions which cannot be ignored.