,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The democratic legitimacy of a British government comes *solely* from Parliament. It is not directly elected. It has no separate mandate of its own. A govt that sets itself against Parliament, or refuses to obey its laws, shuts off the source of its own democratic authority. 1/*
2. In recent years, successive prime ministers have tried to operate the British Constitution like a presidential system. That worked (in a fashion) so long as governments had large majorities in Parliament. It becomes actively dangerous when a govt is at odds with Parliament.
3. In the US system, which casts too great a spell on British governments, a president who sets himself against Congress has his own democratic mandate. A prime minister who sets himself against Parliament has no mandate at all, save from a few thousand unelected party activists.
4. Every day, we hear new claims about the power of an Executive that is rooted in Parliament to defy that Parliament: to refuse to send laws for Royal Assent; to ignore a Vote of No Confidence; to instruct the Queen to veto legislation; even to close it down for weeks on end.
5. This is constitutionally incoherent: like a plant declaring war on the soil in which it grows. Parliament is not there to follow the orders of the executive. It is not simply a veto player, armed only with a reserve power to collapse the govt. It is the core of our democracy.
6. If we want an executive that can defy Parliament (and there's a case for that, on the principle of checks & balances) then we should create an elected presidency, with an independent democratic mandate. What we cannot do is to allow a *party* presidency to usurp that role.
7. As a democratic institution, the UK government shines with borrowed light: a light that comes *solely* from the consent of our elected representatives. Shut that down, and our democracy is plunged into darkness. As citizens, let us not go gentle into that good night. [ENDS]
