,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I think Andrew makes an important point - and it is a point where UK temperament clashes with a system the UK has set up itself. It goes back to the fundamental difference of systems without judicial review of parliament (UK) and with such review (most others, e.g. US) (thread)
In the UK Parliament is sovereign, the majority has the government, so the government wields a tremendous amount of power. Constitutional constraints are limited under sovereignty of parliament. The majority rules. Politics trumps “protocol”. Others mop up.
In the US, in the EU, in the EU’s member states constitutional documents limit the power of government. Courts enforce those limits, actions can be brought by minorities. “Protocol” trumps politics.
Now you can stretch that system. Roosevelt once tested its very limits (for the New Deal). You can interpret broadly. You can get away with much. But not with everything. The limits the system imposes are real.
For the EU, Member States jealously guarded their say. Their say is through the Council. Council action, Council control is very real. Just ask its former legal advisor @piris_jc . The UK insisted on these limits, as much, at times more than others. They limit what’s possible.
