This week’s read of the economist was not overly happy for me. See previous blog: Worst Week Reading The Economist. But the newspaper still shines when it avoids writing about Trump.
In Baghot: The Machine Splitters; Unsexy as it may seem, Britain needs a big constitutional debate, the paper argues convincingly for a real written constitution.
Britain of course has no written constitution. It has many laws and documents but over the years a series of conditions emerged that resulted in no expect need for it. The article highlights the three conditions:
- Consensus among the country’s rulers about certain enduring traditions
- A population willing to defer to the elite’s application and interpretation of those traditions
- A steady, incremental evolution of those traditions rather than sudden, violent shocks
The country has been lucky in that is has not experienced such shocks for a long time. However Brexit is a big one. The paper argues it is big enough to warrant the debate. I agree.
The problem is that there is no president to call on to guide how Britain extricates itself from Europe. It certainly got its way into Europe with creeping incrementalism, launching the whole affair itself after World War II. But the effort to join was not painless, and its efforts (twice foiled by de Galle) coincided with the demise of empire and decoupling of commonwealth. Such a long-winded process resulted in tight links without the need for a constitution. Getting out of it, inside 2 years, is a whole different ball game. At least we don’t have de Gaulle snooping around.