The prorogation controversy has led some to renew calls for a written constitution. I find this odd as it would undoubtedly create more occasions where the Courts would be required to decide questions that have been traditionally kept to politics, which is generally contrary to what such people want.
Secondly, it would require a form of special majority decision making where the situation would not as now be decided by one decision making process but be more than one, whether the immediate decision was compatible with a written constitution. It is arguable that this has been a key part of creating the Brexit mess since Brexit has been treated as a single decision through the referendum and then been subjected to a second decision making process through Parliament.
Much of the fury at the decisions made by Parliament are generated by the assumption that it should be subordinate to the decisions presumed o have been made in the Referendum.
The same problem would arise with all those who argue that the referendum should have a special majority of some kind, whether (say) a 60% majority or a quorum as in the 1979 Scottish devolution debate. Those who wanted a 50% majority regarded as binding would regard any blockage based on a higher majority as illegitimate.
No comments:
Post a Comment