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
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.
No, the Parliament tarnished itself... the crown absolutely must not get involved in politics.
ReplyDelete1689 Defence of the Realm Act, compels the monarch to defend democracy, which in this case, means acting to prevent parliament from blocking the will of the people.
ReplyDelete