Anthony Barnett (London, OK): With debate bubbling about whether a written constitution is needed to help resolve issues of layered identity and integration, the core anti-argument popped up in response to a feeble Comment is Free article against the monarchy by Graham Smith of Republic that was a response to the wretched John Gray that I blogged yesterday. On the monarchy also what matters is having a written constitution. If a majority vote in a referendum to keep it hereditary it will be a pity, I’d prefer a republic. But I’m a democrat first. What's important is that the monarch swears an oath of allegiance to a democratic constitution which defines the role of the head of state and thus we see the last of divine right. Smith’s article said, mildly and in passing, that he wanted a written constitution and this drew a wonderful example of our ancient regime’s policeman’s plod mentality from “Billy1” (Comment No. 731326)
Smith wrote: "As for the constitution - we have one, it's just not codified or written into a single document. Personally I believe this is, in itself, bad for democracy, because it makes it that much more difficult for voters to fully understand how the constitution works." And this is Billy1’s reply:
That's such a 'liberal elite' thing to say. The vast majority of people in this country couldn't give a monkeys what the constitution says now, as unwritten, or if it were written down. If it were written down, it would be written in language unintelligible to many people.
This whole article speaks only to a liberal elite who think this stuff really matters, whilst most of the really important functions of the state are malfunctioning or at the very least not functioning as well as they could (health, the police, education).
You really haven't advanced any particularly decisive arguments for getting rid of the monarchy and there are so many reasons to keep it, including if it ain't broke......
Elitism, eh? To work up from the bottom. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is the voice of the status quo pretending to be cockney. If it is the case that our health service, our police and the education of children is not working, as Billy claims, doesn’t that suggest there is a system fault? If the English are not fairly represented; if the House of Lords, one half of our parliament is a bunch of cronies; if our election system is ridiculously unfair; if we are made part of a European constitution but can’t vote on it; if our basic liberties are being data mined; if… there is no need to continue, except to ask why there does not seem to be the slightest buzz of synapse electricity in Billy1’s brain that connects all this and wonders whether, perhaps, maybe there is something in the system that needs fixing?
Apparently such a suggestion “speaks only to a liberal elite who think this stuff really matters while most of the really important functions of the state are malfunctioning…” The malfunctioning is a consequence of a broken constitutional order that over-centralises. So it really does matter in the practical, policy areas. It also matters for itself because a constitution sets out the rules about what kind of country we are. "The vast majority of people in this country couldn't give a monkeys what the constitution says" claims Billy1, echoing political class presumption. Not so, the latest ICM State of the Nation poll (opens in pdf) completed in 2006 shows that asked whether “Britain needs a written constitution providing clear legal rules within which government ministers and civil servants are forced to operate”, 68% agreed (43% agreed strongly) and only 8% disagreed (5% strongly). As to the alleged elite character of this view, 73% of the unemployed (103 people of the sample) agreed that we needed a strong written constitution compared to 67% in social class AB (374 of the sample). Most striking, the group most strongly opposed to a written constitution (8%) was social class AB.
As for Billy1’s claim that “If it were written down, it would be written in language unintelligible to many people”, all we need to do is quote back his opening words, “That's such a 'liberal elite' thing to say”. Elitism? Look into the mirror Billy1!
