News from the New Party

Friday, July 06, 2007

Constitutional tinkering

Gordon Brown's proposals for constitutional reform are a mixed bag indeed. They include the relatively trivial, the uncontroversial, the worthy, the gimmicky and the downright ludicrous. In view of the previous government's record of constitutional vandalism, the idea of Gordon Brown stepping in to repair the damage would be welcome, if that was what he is proposing to do. Unfortunately, the Brown programme for constitutional reform is notable for the issues it dodges rather than for the proposals it actually contains.

For example, the proposal that Church of England bishops should be chosen by the Church of England and not by the Prime Minister seems on the face of it to be altogether reasonable. The underlying constitutional issue, however, is the position of the established Church, and the question of whether or not it should be established at all. In other words, the issue is the separation of Church and state. Yet the Prime Minister has stated that although he is weakening the link with the established Church, he does not want to see it broken. What he has not said is why.

On the face of it, the most far-reaching (and staggering) change will be the requirement that parliament should be given the power to declare war. This move has all the appearance of complete lunacy. In the event of an invasion or other emergency, for example, the Prime Minister should not need to wait for a vote in the House of Commons before defending the realm. Of course, this has been explicitly acknowledged by Gordon Brown: in any such eventuality, no-one will be waiting for parliament to make up its mind. In any case, sovereign nations these days hardly ever declare war. There are conflicts, crises, operations and actions, but hardly ever "wars", which carry further specific obligations in international law. So what does this new proposal mean? Its purpose primarily is to serve as a sop and a reassurance to Labour opponents of the Iraq war, and as such its significance is more political than constitutional. The political significance is ominous, however. It constitutes further evidence that Gordon Brown's government is distancing itself from Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq, and the principle of an interventionist foreign policy in defence of western values.

The constitutional questions which need answering, however, remain unaddressed. The Human Rights Act, which has proved itself to be the second greatest threat to our human rights after the terrorist threat itself, is not mentioned: the Act is a stain on the British constitution and it should be repealed.

There is silence regarding the confusion left behind by the devolution settlement in Scotland, and the implicit threat to the Union itself posed by the election of a SNP government in Holyrood.

Nothing is said about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Will the new government support further integration, on what terms and to what extent will the British people be given a say in the matter via referendum?

There are major constitutional issues to be dealt with during the remainder of this parliament, but Gordon Brown's government appears unwilling to address them. So far, the most abiding characteristic of New New Labour is its willingness to duck the big questions.

News from the New Party

News Highlights

News Archive

Constitutional tinkering