The constitutional future

I confess that I consider The Queen was very ill-served by her advisors (private secretary?) in granting prorogation of Parliament so readily to Johnson.

She is supposed to make her decisions in conjunction with the Privy Council, but it turns out only two of them – both from the government – were there.

ls it too much to ask that knowing, as she must have done, the very unusual nature of the request, she should have delayed permission pending discussion with the Privy Council – the lot of them?

No constitutional upset there I suggest, just obeying the rules to the letter. Not denying the request, but just delaying, in order to clarify a very unusual request.

As a result of that really very laxly considered decision, I really think it’s time for retirement at 93 and to let Charlie have a go.

It may be too late for change this time, but it does look as though this particular method of constitutional outsourcing might well be in line to go the way of Carillion, and we will have, while still an unwritten constitution, an abstract concept, the Rule of Law. as our guiding light.

It is entirely in character for a nation (we must exclude, ironically, Scotland, for they looked mostly towards much Roman practice) that originated unwritten Common Law.

Let us hope, as much of the legislature is not, it seems, up to the task, that tennis court oaths are not required, and that by contrast, the judiciary sees clearly the UK’s constitutional future.

For, we find out that an unwritten constitution relies on the reasonableness of government, and in its absence, without checks, the Divine Right of Kings simply transfers directly to become the Divine Right of Prime Ministers.