Legal challenge launched to stop PM forcing through no-deal Brexit

We have a head of state known as Elizabeth II. Her role is not merely decorative. The monarch retains a number of important residual prerogatives. Those impinging directly on conduct of politics are rarely exercised; political stability and continuance of monarchy require affected parties to strive for settlement; in general, upsetting the apple cart is in nobody’s long term interests.

Elizabeth must soon decide whether to intervene in the present political impasse. What’s at stake is no minor matter. In a broad sense it is constitutional: British subjects of the crown may be forced against their will to renounce citizenship within the EU and the various rights and protections that offers. They are being pushed toward an unknown fate within which poorly explicated dangers lurk. There is concern that some major institutions (e.g. the NHS) beloved by Elizabeth’s people may be sacrificed on the altar of ‘who knows what?’

Given that Elizabeth’s parliament is in disarray, her responsibility is such that she must not let long term governance of the UK be decided on whim or arbitrary application of rarely used powers, indeed anachronistic powers, by custom delegated to her prime minister.

Elizabeth is, by convention, required to take into consideration the so-called ‘will of the people’ as expressed in parliament. She will be aware that parliament, and the population at large, is divided over the extent of authority given to parliament by a bare majority in a referendum with 72% turnout. She also ought be aware of that fact that the referendum question lacked nuance concerning desired nature of disengagement from the EU. In addition she should note that ‘constitutional’ referenda conducted elsewhere generally demand a high percentage (often 75%) in favour of change from a pre-specified acceptable turnout.

Thus, Elizabeth may legitimately judge that her intervention has no bearing on the true ‘will of the people’ because said ‘will’ was elicited in incompetent manner. She may note that a clean break from the EU need be no matter of urgency even should that, upon later polling, turn out to be what a sizeable majority want.

Elizabeth will be advised by her Privy Council (and perhaps others). She should note that the inner core of her Council, that which in her name decides important matters such as foreign policy and exercises some other residual prerogatives on her behalf, is unlikely to be manned by people capable of exercising a disinterested stance: bluntly, there are powerful interests, perhaps among her own family too, favouring ‘no deal’ Brexit to feather their own nests.

Elizabeth, in these closing years of her reign, faces crossroads her immediate predecessors did not. The Wallis Simpson scandal was trivial in comparison.

Elizabeth must decide whether she stands for her people or for the ambitions of her recently restructured, that without a general election, government. Obviously, she cannot be expected to divine the true so-called ‘will of her people’. The referendum was deeply flawed and in subsequent shambles a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. It must not be assumed events in 2016 still lead to the best options.

By threatening to push through no-deal Brexit by excluding further proper parliamentary scrutiny, Elizabeth’s newly appointed prime minister is displaying breathtaking arrogance; this to a degree uncountenanced in the twentieth century and eyebrow raising in the nineteenth.

This is the time when, drawing upon immense experience accumulated over many decades, Elizabeth II must show mettle as the monarch for the people. Perhaps, sense can be instilled in various heads behind the scenes; diplomacy of a monarch with a, possibly one punch, iron fist in a velvet glove. Failing that, the knave Johnson must be firmly put in his proper place.

—–

Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 international license.