,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
@Jesse_Norman is a serious, interesting and thoughtful thinker about constitutional (and other) issues. So this is worth reflecting on.
I think my response would be this. If “flexibility” is a strength of the U.K. constitution - as Jesse says it is - then that is because it can rapidly adjust to unprecedented developments.
The situation that is at issue is unprecedented in its combination of two factors.
The first (which we are assuming for the moment) is the HoC wishes the Government to pursue a policy of fundamental importance (requiring legislation) which the Govt does not wish to pursue. (This could be seeking the EEA as a final arrangement, a permanent CU, or a referendum.)
The second is that there is no majority for a vote of no confidence that could meet the terms of the FTPA and no alternative government that could survive such a vote.
(The second part of that sentence is worth noting: in the C19 there were several occasions where the sitting PM reacted to a lost vote on a question of importance by resigning and advising the Queen to send for someone else who could survive a confidence vote.)
The coming together of those two factors is utterly unprecedented.
And it immediately and obviously calls into question the HoC standing orders that give the Govt effective control of the business of the House. In these circumstances, that control effectively frustrates the will of the House.
Any flexible constitution has to adapt to that. The cry of “it hasn’t been done before” isn’t persuasive.
Nor is it persuasive to say that it’s wrong to make such a change in the heat of battle. That is precisely when questions that require a flexible response arise.
Moreover, the very standing order which Jesse days we should hesitate to change was itself a change made in the heat of battle, namely the response to a campaign of disruption of Commons business by Irish MPs campaigning for Home Rule.
I therefore do not find, on this occasion, Jesse’s argument to be very compelling.
