A royal mess: How Brexit has tarnished the crown

A royal mess: How Brexit has tarnished the crown

Queen Elizabeth II couldn’t avoid being dragged into the political fray.

By EMILIO CASALICCHIO 9/5/19, 5:33 PM CET Updated 9/6/19, 4:47 AM CET

https://www.politico.eu/article/a-royal-mess-queen-elizabeth/

Illustrations by Chris Buzelli for POLITICO

LONDON — Brexit has breached the gates of Buckingham Palace.

The battle over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union has rocked some of the country’s most cherished institutions. It has dominated the political debate, paralyzed parliament, pitted Tory against Tory, Labour against Labour and threatened the integrity of the Union. Then late last month, it reached out and touched the queen.

Queen Elizabeth II is the least politically assuming of any sovereign before her. Promoted in the line of succession by the abdication of her uncle, the 93-year-old monarch has spent her more than six decades on the throne cultivating a neutral and institutional role.

“The queen’s personal view is to stay out of politics,” said Robert Lacey, a royal historian and historical consultant on Netflix series “The Crown.” “It’s her nature to be shy. It’s her nature not to intervene. She doesn't believe it’s the constitutional monarch’s role to make interventions, to change the rules or change things.”

But when Boris Johnson — the 14th prime minister to serve under her reign — asked her to shut down parliament for four weeks, she couldn’t avoid being dragged into the political fray.

  

The queen had little choice in the matter. Tradition dictates she grant the prime minister his requests. But with Johnson’s move seen as an effort to prevent parliament from blocking a no-deal Brexit and the country so deeply divided between Leave and Remain, any answer she gave was bound to infuriate one side or the other.

And some of the reaction was, indeed, furious.

 “The. Queen. Did. Not. Save. Us,” tweeted Labour MP and former frontbencher Kate Osamor. Shortly afterwards she added: “The queen should look at what happened to her cousin Tino ex-King of Greece when you enable a right-wing coup! Monarchy abolished!”

A petition launched by the anti-Brexit campaign group Best for Britain asking the queen to refuse the request from Johnson quickly racked up more than 50,000 signatures, and the sovereign was soon fielding requests from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson to meet with them and hear their complaints about the decision.

“A lot of people half hoped that the queen would somehow come riding in on a stallion or one of her corgis to save the day,” said Adam Wagner, a human rights lawyer and expert on constitutional law. “But the idea that the sovereign plays any substantial role in this farce is complete nonsense.”

Medieval trappings

In another political context, Queen Elizabeth’s decision to follow with tradition and grant Johnson’s request would have passed unremarked.

While the monarchy retains much of its medieval trappings, its power has been in decline ever since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.

According to protocol, the queen appoints the prime minister and accepts his or her resignation. She opens parliament almost every year with “the Queen’s Speech,” outlining the government’s program. The arcane tradition sees her leave Buckingham Palace in a horse-drawn carriage and ride to the Houses of Parliament, escorted by the Household Cavalry.

Once there, she leads the Royal Procession through the House of Lords, wearing the Imperial State Crown and the Robe of State. An official to the Lords, known as Black Rod, goes to the Commons to summon members and take them to the Lords Chamber. When he reaches the door of the Commons it is shut in his face and he has to knock three times to gain entry — to symbolize the authority of the Commons over the Lords. The MPs file into the upper chamber and listen as the queen reads out the government program for that parliamentary session from a throne.

Sarah Clarke, the first-ever woman to hold the position of Black Rod in the House of Lords | Pool photo by Victoria Jones via Getty Images

But formalities like these aside, the British monarchy has lost almost all of its real authority. The queen neither writes, nor necessarily agrees with the contents of, the Queen’s Speech. The last monarch to dismiss a prime minister was King William IV, who sacked William Lamb in 1834. It did not go well for him. His chosen replacement, Robert Peel, could not command the confidence of the Commons and an election was called, which Lamb won.

And the last time a British monarch refused to follow the advice of their government was in 1936 when King Edward VIII wanted to marry American socialite Wallace Simpson, said Robert Hazell, a professor of government and the constitution at University College London. Edward was forced to abdicate after holding the throne for just 12 months.

The monarchy’s few remaining powers include “the right to claim ownership of any unmarked mute swan swimming in open waters,” the titular ownership of any whales or porpoises swimming in British waters, and the right to drive without a license.

“It is no longer acceptable for a modern monarch in a parliamentary democracy to have any political power,” said Hazell, noting a similar decline of power in constitutional monarchies elsewhere in Europe.

“They are all now in effect neutered monarchs in that they no longer exercise any real political power and they have all become much less assertive,” he said.

Rule of law

Because the country has no written constitution, the queen's role in public life and what her ceremonial powers really mean exist in a grey area. A small number of people clearly thought Elizabeth could have — and maybe should have — refused Johnson's request to suspend parliament. But had she done so, it would have triggered a constitutional crisis.

Constitutional experts have also been quizzed in recent weeks over whether the queen might have to intervene and dismiss the prime minister if Johnson lost a confidence vote but refused to resign. The Commons would have to give a clear signal that another candidate could command a majority in order for her to do so.

Some Brexiteers have also suggested that the government neuter efforts by parliamentary rebels to delay Brexit by refusing to send their legislation for "Royal Assent," the process by which the queen agrees to turn a bill into law. The process once required the monarch's signature, but it is now a quick formality that does not involve her directly.

One legal expert said the constitution would be thrown into "crazy territory" if the government tried to pull such a move.

And so it’s perhaps not surprising that Johnson’s maneuver — and the queen’s involvement in it — has fueled calls for putting the constitution down on paper.

The Queen's relationship with the prime minister is all about formality — from their first official meeting after Boris Johnson was elected, to his request that she shut down parliament for four weeks | Pool photo by Victoria Jones via Getty Images

“We can’t run a country like this, we need a written constitution,” said Conservative MP Rory Stewart. “We’re only able to survive with an unwritten constitution because people behave, but as people push the limits more and more we need to clarify this stuff.”

Labour MP and shadow Treasury minister Clive Lewis went a step further and called for a constitutional convention.

“We have a political constitution that is barely fit for the 19th century, let alone the 20th or 21st,” Lewis said. “It’s high time, once the dust has settled on Brexit, that this country really begins to understand that a democratic constitutional convention is necessary to work out what structure we are going to have for the United Kingdom.”

One of the key questions in any such venture would be the role of the monarch. “I’m not sure what the appetite is for a republic but I think that should be on the agenda as something we should discuss,” said Lewis.

While few are calling for an end of the monarchy, the creation of a written constitution could curtail its powers for good.

“With our historic norms crumbling, even ardent monarchists will see that only a written constitution can preserve the decorative role of the crown while protecting the rest of us from prime ministers acting like absolutist kings or queens,” said Anthony Barnett, the author and co-founder of the OpenDemocracy website | Pool photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images

“On one hand, you could have a written constitution that puts the monarch as a purely titular head of state that does not even have the formal power that she has now,” said Wagner, the human rights barrister and constitutional law expert. “Or you write exactly what powers the monarch has into the constitution. You could also have a president, and the queen could be a figurehead rather than have any political role at all.”

Anthony Barnett, the author and co-founder of the OpenDemocracy website, argues that the informal checks and balances that used to work in the unwritten British constitution — of Cabinet, government and the civil service, among other things — have been broken by a succession of prime ministers eager to bend the rules in their favor.

Johnson’s involvement of the queen to close down parliament was just the latest example of many.

“With our historic norms crumbling, even ardent monarchists will see that only a written constitution can preserve the decorative role of the crown while protecting the rest of us from prime ministers acting like absolutist kings or queens,” he said.

Charlie Cooper contributed reporting.

This article is part of POLITICO’s premium Brexit service for professionals: Brexit Pro. To test our expert policy coverage of the implications and next steps per industry, email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.