Walshe, Brexit Is Destroying Britain's Constitution - Foreign Policy

Brexit Is Destroying Britain’s Constitution – Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/18/brexit-is-destroying-britains-...
ARGUMENT
Brexit Is Destroying
Britain’s Constitution
Whatever the outcome, Brexit has triggered an irreversible collapse of
Britain's political, legal, and social order.
BY GARVAN WALSHE | DECEMBER 18, 2018, 4:34 AM
T wo events last week changed the Brexit game. On Monday, the

European Court of Justice ruled that the United Kingdom could
unilaterally cancel its decision to leave the European Union before
signing a withdrawal agreement. Then on Wednesday, Conservative
members of parliament called a vote of no confidence in their leader Theresa
May (who leads the party as well as being prime minister)—and lost. They
only mustered 117 votes to unseat her, while she secured the backing of 200
Conservative MPs. According to Tory party rules, she now can’t be
challenged for another year: Instead of deposing her, they’ve given her a year
of magical leading.
The first development strengthened remainers, and the second gave the
prime minister vital breathing space that could theoretically be used to
advance their agenda. But despite the fervent hopes of remainers, nothing
that happened last week makes an “exit from Brexit” more likely. Instead,
Brexit compromises conceivably capable of bridging the country’s divides,
such as the “Norway plus” option proposed by moderate Conservative MP
Nick Boles, are now harder than ever to reach. Meanwhile, Britain is
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads,
and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
1 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM
crisis.
Lacking a written constitution, Britain has always relied on what we might

call “alternating majoritarianism” for political stability. One party gets in and
is allowed free rein to do what it wants. The fact that the British public
generally has taken a dim view of parties it considered too extreme has
generally forced these supposedly all-powerful majority parties away from
their members’ views and toward the political center. And under Britain’s
first-past-the-post electoral system, centrist third parties face structural
hurdles that prevent them from making headway.
That system is now broken. It relied on the big Conservative and Labour
parties being able to win “working majorities” that limited MPs’ ability to
rebel against their party lines. There’s no point in 10 or 15 MPs rebelling
when a government has a majority of 50. All it achieves is to damage the
rebels’ prospects of promotion. But that system has been fatally undermined
from multiple directions.
First, the strength of the Scottish National Party has made working
majorities a thing of the past. It made its breakthrough in 2015, after an
independence referendum it lost, but at which it vastly exceeded
expectations. Its geographical concentration allows it to win Westminster
seats in Scotland, and without Scottish seats it’s almost impossible for the
two big England-based parties to win a working majority.
Without a working majority, party leaders must pay attention to their hard-
liners, or, as some Conservative Party members have been known to call
them, “swivel-eyed loons.” The loons forced David Cameron to offer a
referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which he, as everyone knows,
narrowly lost. Normally, Britain’s flexible political system could
accommodate one party’s indulgence of extremism: if the Conservatives
2 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM
would typically open up space in the center for Labour to position itself as
the defender of economically pragmatic close relations with it. However,
Labour is currently led by the far-left and anti-European Jeremy Corbyn,
keen to facilitate Brexit and take advantage of the economic chaos to
implement a radical socialist agenda.
Superimposed on these new, more polarized parties are the new, essentially
sectarian political identities created by the Brexit referendum itself. Leavers
and remainers move in different social circles and have different
understandings of the central facts of Brexit. Though there are still
pragmatists in the center, political careers are now made by appealing to the
tribes’ core beliefs. Thus Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, a remainer in 2016,
has now declared himself unafraid of the harshest, “no deal” Brexit, while
former Education Secretary Justine Greening has been working on bringing
about a new referendum since Theresa May sacked her in the summer.
This is the context in which to understand the rampant reports of

conspiratorial plots within the cabinet: remainers plotting a new referendum
(and seeking legal advice on whether Britain’s decision to leave could be
revoked by executive action, without consulting Parliament) and anti-
Europeans threatening to resign from the government, reject the withdrawal
agreement Theresa May negotiated with the EU, and leave without any sort
of deal at all. (The Bank of England estimated that such a “disorderly” Brexit
would cause unemployment to almost double, inflation to rise to more than
6 percent, house prices to fall by 30 percent, and the pound to fall below
parity with the euro.)
Britain’s constitutional crisis running in parallel to its Brexit debate has

made it much harder for any of these plots to come to fruition. There is no
majority for any policy at all in Parliament. Whereas cabinet resignations
were once accompanied by the prospect of the resigned minister and her
3 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM
entourage joining the leader’s opponents in a vote of no confidence, May’s

year of immunity has closed off that option; resignation will just produce ex-
cabinet ministers, fuming on the back benches without a ministerial car and
salary.
The true limits of their power now revealed, no-deal Brexiteers are now
contemplating a legislative strike, which would deprive the government of
its majority for everything except confidence votes, or even forming a new
hard-right party. That would allow them to vote against the government in a
confidence vote and provoke an election. The effect of a new party would,
however, be to split the anti-Labour vote and give Jeremy Corbyn a good
chance of entering Downing Street.
But nor is there any easy path to a second referendum, as remainers hope. If
nothing changes, Britain will leave the EU on March 29, 2019. Holding a
referendum requires an Act of Parliament, and thus continuous control of
the legislative timetable to avoid a filibuster. In practice, that too requires a
change of government, as well as for the EU to grant an extension to the
Article 50 negotiating period to allow one to take place. Even if remainers
managed to get this far, referendum proposals would be accompanied by
intense and polarizing debates about the referendum question (or
questions—a two-stage referendum has been suggested), the franchise (one
prominent anti-Brexit group wants to give EU citizens in the U.K. and British
citizens in the EU the right to vote in it), the regulation of political spending,
and the conduct of a campaign. Extreme Brexiteers have already begun civil
disobedience, though their competence leaves something to be desired.
The only certainty is that Britain’s political rewards now go to men and
women who promote polarization, not compromise. And because the
country is divided in two almost exactly equal halves, neither side can win
decisively. Just as remainers have not accepted the legitimacy of the 2016
4 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM
referendum, leavers won’t accept the legitimacy of a plebiscite held in 2019.

Expect divisions to deepen and radicalization to progress further. David
Cameron’s decision to hold this referendum about a question so
fundamental to Britain’s national identity opened up this chasm in the
country.
It will remain unsealable until the baby-boom generation is no longer with

us. This group, who grew up in the glow of the Allies’ victory in World War II
but who missed out on the bloody fighting itself, is disproportionately pro-
Brexit. The relatively few old enough to remember the war are considerably
more likely to oppose leaving the EU. Meanwhile the young now identify as
pro-European in a way that would never have occurred to them before the
2016 vote. The weight of their increasing numbers will eventually tell. Yet the
boomers’ demographic albatross will press further still if, as is in my view
probable, English political chaos stimulates Scotland to choose
independence and (though this is less likely) Northern Ireland to unite with
the Irish Republic. Losing those two pro-EU territories would allow
Brexiteers to keep up the fight for perhaps another five or 10 years longer
than they otherwise could.
A decade of intense political conflict is a grim prospect for a country with

few formal institutions and weak legal oversight of the political process. The
desire to seize positions of power and hold them against equally matched
enemies is more associated with countries on the descent toward civil war
than mature liberal democracies like the United Kingdom. A different
American government would make the resolution of conflict in one of its
most important allies a major foreign-policy priority. It only compounds
Britain’s misfortune that the Trump administration has neither the attention
nor inclination nor ability to get involved.
5 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM
Garvan Walshe is a former national and international security policy advisor to the British
Conservative Party and the CEO of Brexit Analytics. @garvanwalshe
VIEW
TAGS: ARGUMENT, BREXIT, BRITAIN, EUROPE, EUROPEAN UNION COMMENTS
6 of 6 1/9/19, 4:57 PM

Walshe, Brexit Is Destroying Britain's Constitution - Foreign Policy

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Walshe, Brexit Is Destroying Britain's Constitution - Foreign Policy

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Brexit Is Destroying Britain’s Constitution – Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/18/brexit-is-destroying-britains-...

T wo events last week changed the Brexit game. On Monday, the

Lacking a written constitution, Britain has always relied on what we might

This is the context in which to understand the rampant reports of

Britain’s constitutional crisis running in parallel to its Brexit debate has

entourage joining the leader’s opponents in a vote of no confidence, May’s

referendum, leavers won’t accept the legitimacy of a plebiscite held in 2019.

It will remain unsealable until the baby-boom generation is no longer with

A decade of intense political conflict is a grim prospect for a country with

S-ar putea să vă placă și