Sam Anderson on Boris, Brexit and the British Constitution
Olivia Ward-Jackson interviews Sam Anderson, from the UCL Constitution Unit, about the current state of British politics.
On Tuesday 24th September, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful. The following day, I met Sam Anderson, the newest member of UCL’s world-renowned Constitution Unit, to discuss Britain’s constitutional crisis over tea and cake. It seemed a very British response to a very un-British crisis.
The political and constitutional crisis brought on by the result of the 2016 referendum on Europe is out of step with most of British history. Indeed, Britain prides itself on its unwritten constitution, the product of hundreds of years of gradual and relatively peaceful political evolution.
“I’ve only just graduated but my career has already peaked”, Sam blurts excitedly. Now is a fascinating time to be working at the UCL Constitution Unit, which was established in 1995 to advise policy makers on constitutional reform, at a time when Blair was advocating devolution and reform of the House of Lords.
“Britain definitively has a constitution”, Sam affirmed. The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, and many other statutory laws, conventions and court rulings all make up our unwritten constitution. Experts, like the UCL Constitution Unit, also play a role in defining and upholding today’s constitution.
In 2016, Michael Gove claimed that ‘people in this country have had enough of experts’. I wondered whether the unwritten and malleable nature of the British constitution made it more partisan to the elites and experts who interpreted it than its written counterparts. Sam suggested otherwise, “if you define the British constitution as ‘what Parliament says is law’, then the constitution is directly representative of the British people.”
Sam did not buy into the popular argument that binary, zero-sum referendums were fundamentally at odds in a representative democracy prone to compromise. “The referendum was the catalyst in Britain’s constitutional crisis, not the cause”. Tensions over Europe had been building for years, he explained, and it was only a matter of time before the issue exploded. As we saw in 2011, when the British public were asked their view on changing the voting system, referendums can be harmless.
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday, Sam recounted there was significant academic consensus that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was, if not unlawful, unconstitutional. It was certainly not in the spirit of the law.
Gladstone once said that the British constitution ‘presumes more boldly than any other the good sense and the good faith of those who work it’. The basic level of trust that allows the British political system to operate has been completely eroded. “It’s incredible that the Commons don’t want an election in case Boris Johnson breaks the law and pushes through no deal – really incredible”, Sam despaired.
Trust has not only disintegrated within Parliament. The British people have lost faith in their politicians, and in each other, as the Brexit debate tears the country apart. To rebuild trust in UK politics, the Constitution Unit is looking into citizens’ assemblies. Rather like jury duty, these assemblies would bring together a randomly selected group of UK citizens to hear experts debate both sides of a topical political question, such as ‘what outcome do we want from Brexit?’ or ‘how should we combat climate change?’
In Sam’s eyes, the Supreme Court ruling on prorogation was an exceptional constitutional case. Parliament should never have permitted prorogation to reach the point where the Supreme Court had to intervene. MPs could have made Corbyn Prime Minister rather than allowing Boris Johnson to walk over the constitution as if it were the No.10 doormat. “It makes you question whether the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is suitable in a modern democracy”. This rings especially true today, when populists around the world are pushing political institutions to the limit.
“It’s muddling through. It’s working. But it is seriously being tested”. The last few months have shown that the constitution is actually working. Parliament was able to pass the Benn Act in an attempt to block a no-deal Brexit. The Supreme Court successfully ruled against prorogation.
Although it is reassuring to hear our constitution is still alive and kicking, recent events have shown it is in dire need of reform. “The relationship between the Government and Parliament needs to be more clearly regulated. We must not allow prerogative powers to be left solely to the executive arm”. It is without doubt problematic that only the Government can call Parliament back from recess early, even though Parliament itself votes to begin the recess period.
“There probably should be a debate on the Fixed Term Parliament Act”. Boris has lost his majority, but the Commons still refuse to vote for an election. This is subverting the traditional relationship between Parliament and the executive. The Government should really be able to command a majority in the Commons to stay in power, and the Fixed Term Parliament Act should reflect that.
I asked Sam whether Britain would adopt a written constitution anytime soon. “Britain is closer now to a constitutional moment than it has been at any time since the Glorious Revolution. If not now, when?” At a time like this, we need to find areas of common ground to bring us together. “It would be an incredibly difficult process, but maybe we should try”.
The UCL Constitution Unit takes on part-time and full-time research volunteers every three months. Please email constitution@ucl.ac.uk to find out more. The Unit also regularly organises free events that are open to the public. On Saturday 5th October they hosting a quiz on Brexit, Parliament and the Constitution. Click on this link to book your tickets now.