Customer Reviews

The New British Constitution

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Americans may be astonished to learn that Britain's Constitution, unlike our own, was not written all at once, but has evolved gradually over time through accumulated legislation and is a largely unwritten assemblage. There was no Constitutional Convention to discuss, debate, and draft the guiding principles of the nation; there was no sudden rupture or rift that necessitated a clean break with the past as with American Independence. As Britain faces myriad constitutional crises and controversies in recent times there is suddenly a wave of potential constitutional changes being discussed and proposed in Parliament and in public. Among the ideas is to create a written constitution.

For Americans this is puzzling and confusing as English Common Law helps to shape and form so much of our society. While the Westminster system of unifying the legislative and executive branches is a bit alien to Americans the idea of scrapping what has worked for England for centuries seems an odd idea indeed. Why fix what isn't broke? But the reality, as pointed out by Bogdanor, is that Britain is trying to move with the times. Joining the European Economic Community in 1973 set Britain on the path towards modernizing its constitution as more power flowed towards Brussels. But Bogdanor argues that the piecemeal changes occurring since that time have failed to revive and rejuvenate British politics, but have instead redistributed power rather than democratizing the political process. Bogdanor argues for divesting power to the people and is clearly a fan of proportional representation, arguing for primaries to select parliamentary candidates as opposed to the old first-past-the-post rule, increasing use of referendums and the use of citizens' assemblies. While that sounds good on paper one need only look at the mess California has gotten into thanks to the referendum process. And while the primary process would make elections somewhat more democratic it would be the death of typically quick British elections as witnessed by the marathon contests here in America.

While the timing of "The New British Constitution" couldn't have been better, and it is quite well written, it remains a polemic with a clear agenda. Bogdanor is clearly looking to establish a dialog and makes persuasive arguments, but the reality is there are equally persuasive counterarguments which aren't made here. As Americans regularly groan about the inefficiency of our country's political system it boggles the mind why Britain would want to adopt some of the same processes. The Westminster system cannot be that badly broken to warrant such an injudicious fix.

By describing the recent and far-reaching changes to the British constitution and delineating its key new features, this book offers an insightful look into the current state of the British system of government. This perceptive survey of Britain's constitutional landscape, written in straightforward prose, will prove of great value to the expert while also being approachable by the general public.

Hasn't the learned professor noticed that our new constitution is the EU Constitution?

This EU Constitution installs a new, more powerful, semi-permanent President and a Foreign Minister, posts that no other international organisation has.
The Constitution guarantees the free movement of persons, capital, goods and services, plus the `freedom of establishment'. This new freedom appears to mean giving the Establishment whatever it wants. Under this `freedom', the European Court of Justice has ruled that Finnish ferry operator Viking Line can ignore its collective agreements with Finnish unions, re-flag its vessels to Estonia and hire local crews on lower pay. The RMT warns that employers will use the ruling to cut wages across the EU because every industrial action `restricts the right of freedom of establishment'.

The EU Constitution spells out the EU's new goals of lowering customs and other barriers and of ending all controls over foreign direct investment. This would leave us defenceless against foreign takeovers and Chinese and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds.

Crucially, the EU Constitution says that EU law will overrule national law. It extends EU rule to justice and home affairs. It gives the EU the right to decide the common commercial policy, and policies over customs, fisheries, money (for eurozone members) and competition. The authors admit, "No other international organisation has such a structure." The EU may not be a `superstate', but its Constitution is a huge step towards a new state.

Before the 2005 election, the three parliamentary parties all pledged to hold a referendum on the Constitution, so whoever won we should have had the referendum. We must have this promised referendum; otherwise, where is the democracy?