Of course, it would be nice, theoretically. But then, considering there was no such backstop process available at the time, it was really up to the PM to apply the brakes to Brexit. She didn’t, so the question is moot. Is it a bad idea? No, I thinks it’s a great idea. But it would require the expenditure of a great deal of effort and political capital to put in place. Does this exist anywhere in the world of constitutional monarchies?
I've wrestled with this question recently after observing the raw, unfiltered, and thoroughly undignified behavior of the ex-US President. I define "dignified" behavior as primarily about respecting those with differing views. That means both setting an example for others to follow and providing a critical precondition for effective compromise. In this regard, Bagehot helped to institutionalize civility and compromise in public discourse. In America, the President has historically been assigned to set the tone for civil discourse, but as we have seen, the absence of institutional structures requiring this has led to a breakdown in civility and a dramatic deepening of the partisan divide. Can the situation be salvaged by assigning authority to a new unelected official whose role was not written into the Constitution? I don't see how, given Americans' deep-seated belief in the infallibility of their own democratic institutions and their historical opposition to any kind of monarchy. (Happy Independence Day, BTW)). As for your question, no urgent national issue, including Brexit, comes to mind as ever justifying royal intervention to overrule Parliament in the UK. I also wonder how, in terms of ways and means, any government would vote to allow such intervention to be codified into law.
Thanks for the input, Henry. I think Brexit is a great example of how this could work, actually. So, Leave wins the referendum without ever defining what Brexit would actually look like. The Tory government then pushes through a very hard Brexit with little debate. A non-executive head of state could use his or her veto to stop this legislation and set up an election campaign. The Tories would have to defend their hard version of Brexit, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the parties in Northern Ireland could argue for a very soft version. Meanwhile, there would also be a parallel election for a new head of state. The candidates would set out the circumstances in which they would use their veto. You could imagine a popular candidate saying that he or she would only veto Brexit if it threatened peace in Northern Ireland.
In this example, the veto would respect the referendum result, but lead to a better discussion on what Brexit actually means. For example, a softer version of Brexit might prove more popular than a harder version. Or the Tories might get their hard Brexit, but with the risk of another veto unless they think harder about Northern Ireland.
I buy your Steel Man argument more than the republican institutional proposal.
In your scheme, I'm not sure I see the advantage of the head of state having to resign if he or she uses the veto. It sets that bar very high, providing a disincentive to do the right thing - which would already be difficult.
Interesting points, gents. We know there is a big category of "things that sound like they should work but don't," which include a centrally planned economy. Maybe we need another category of "things that work even though they sound terrible in theory"? What else could we include alongside a constitutional monarchy?
Of course, it would be nice, theoretically. But then, considering there was no such backstop process available at the time, it was really up to the PM to apply the brakes to Brexit. She didn’t, so the question is moot. Is it a bad idea? No, I thinks it’s a great idea. But it would require the expenditure of a great deal of effort and political capital to put in place. Does this exist anywhere in the world of constitutional monarchies?
I've wrestled with this question recently after observing the raw, unfiltered, and thoroughly undignified behavior of the ex-US President. I define "dignified" behavior as primarily about respecting those with differing views. That means both setting an example for others to follow and providing a critical precondition for effective compromise. In this regard, Bagehot helped to institutionalize civility and compromise in public discourse. In America, the President has historically been assigned to set the tone for civil discourse, but as we have seen, the absence of institutional structures requiring this has led to a breakdown in civility and a dramatic deepening of the partisan divide. Can the situation be salvaged by assigning authority to a new unelected official whose role was not written into the Constitution? I don't see how, given Americans' deep-seated belief in the infallibility of their own democratic institutions and their historical opposition to any kind of monarchy. (Happy Independence Day, BTW)). As for your question, no urgent national issue, including Brexit, comes to mind as ever justifying royal intervention to overrule Parliament in the UK. I also wonder how, in terms of ways and means, any government would vote to allow such intervention to be codified into law.
Thanks for the input, Henry. I think Brexit is a great example of how this could work, actually. So, Leave wins the referendum without ever defining what Brexit would actually look like. The Tory government then pushes through a very hard Brexit with little debate. A non-executive head of state could use his or her veto to stop this legislation and set up an election campaign. The Tories would have to defend their hard version of Brexit, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the parties in Northern Ireland could argue for a very soft version. Meanwhile, there would also be a parallel election for a new head of state. The candidates would set out the circumstances in which they would use their veto. You could imagine a popular candidate saying that he or she would only veto Brexit if it threatened peace in Northern Ireland.
In this example, the veto would respect the referendum result, but lead to a better discussion on what Brexit actually means. For example, a softer version of Brexit might prove more popular than a harder version. Or the Tories might get their hard Brexit, but with the risk of another veto unless they think harder about Northern Ireland.
I buy your Steel Man argument more than the republican institutional proposal.
In your scheme, I'm not sure I see the advantage of the head of state having to resign if he or she uses the veto. It sets that bar very high, providing a disincentive to do the right thing - which would already be difficult.
Maybe we should simply accept that monarchy is horribly unfair and stupid but it simply works. That seems to be history's verdict.
Interesting points, gents. We know there is a big category of "things that sound like they should work but don't," which include a centrally planned economy. Maybe we need another category of "things that work even though they sound terrible in theory"? What else could we include alongside a constitutional monarchy?
capitalism, religion, soccer...