Frederick Robertson: Labour’s constitutional meddling threatens to shackle Britain in a federalist straitjacket

Frederick Robertson is an A-Level Politics student and conservative activist in Derby with a keen interest in constitutional issues.

In the final days of last year, the Government published its latest covert attempt to vandalise the uncodified nature of the British constitution.

The White Paper on English Devolution – despite raising valid points surrounding the efficacy and practicality of England’s local authority system – is nothing short of an attempt to enshrine unalterable federalism into our constitution.

The very principle of devolution walks a fine line between the pacification of independence movements and an attack on the foundations of our unitary system. Delegating powers away from a sovereign parliament not only threatens the political union of our four nations, but weakens the standing of our Prime Minister, our Government, and our only truly democratically elected legislative body.

Handing control of taxation, transport, and education to devolved assemblies is a dangerous game, and as a conservative, such ill-considered reforms offend every natural fibre I can muster. This quasi-federal system is palatable only on the grounds that it remains quasi.

As it stands, all devolution legislation may be revoked at the strike of a pen at the whim of a secretary of state for Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. This system attempts to placate separatists, while maintaining sole sovereign power in the hands of the UK Parliament (as it should be).

A balancing act of delicate political prowess: our half-in, half-out devolution agreement has proved a prime example of ‘mission creep’. Since its establishment in 1998, Holyrood has clawed the power to allocate spending on education, policing and transport, alongside the ability to set extra taxation.

I doubt this ruthless expansion of sovereign power preyed on the minds of the MPs who backed Blair’s dubious plans. Devolution exists, then, in a repealable form, beholden to the central structures of Parliament, which remains sovereign and absolute, yet delegated.

Today’s Labour government seeks to amend that balance with a sledgehammer by seeking to, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, embed devolution “as a default into our country’s constitution”. This radical act directly challenges the sovereignty of the UK parliament, and is a clear attempt to codify the British constitution without a democratic mandate.

Our constitution is, by its traditional nature, flexible from one government to the next. Flexible in both directions. One cannot simply bend our laws one way only to cement its position there for eternity.

Despite looking into the serpentine face of tyranny and horror, our legislation does not turn to a cold, immovable stone. Governments have unparalleled constitutional and legal freedom in the UK, even being able to overrule our Supreme Court with a simple majority vote, but it cannot and shall not bind its successor as a weak autocrat would seek to embed his legacy.

Never forget that this seemingly minuscule change to local authority structure represents one of the most significant and permanent constitutional amendments since the Parliament Acts, and stands on equal, if not greater, terms than the most notable constitutional amendments passed by our friends across the pond.

A US amendment requires nothing short of a legislative supermajority, and ratification by three quarters of state governments (a task impossible without widespread public and bipartisan support). I may be the cynical type, but I retain severe reservations over whether Keir Starmer and his inexperienced band of MPs – backed by a mere 20 per cent of the eligible electorate – could drum up that kind of support for a needlessly complicated and radical piece of legislation, which would set the precedent for the codification en masse of our prized political system.

Our way of government is the product of a grand evolution across millennia, each fibre refined and adjusted, tending towards political perfection. This radical revolution of constitutional tradition seeks to erase this hard-earned progress, and rid our nation of the hereditary wisdom we have accumulated.

I do not deny the commonplace inefficiencies and bloated bureaucracies of borough, district, and parish councils, but this sweeping scythe of legislation cuts through the heart of our constitutional tradition, with blatant disregard for neither what has gone before, nor what may come after this Labour government.

Despite Rayner’s strong feelings toward constitutional vandalism, we must reserve the right to reverse any change made by any parliament, as many times as is necessary. Situations change, and threats evolve. We cannot expect Lady Britannia to defend our shores if we have tied one hand behind her back with a rope of constitutional codification.

We must have freedom, and we must avoid embedded devolution. Not only does this act harm our traditions, but it creates an unbearable precedent for government: that it may simply steamroll any convention or agreement which preserves the delicate balancing act of our democracy.

Without one singular document to keep government in check, we rely on a series of unspoken codes and agreements to ensure the smooth running of government; codes and agreements which possess the same status as local councils. Imagine a world where Starmer retains the absolute powers to disregard international treaties, ignore votes of no confidence, and deceive the people without fear of repercussion. The impacts of a government unbounded by constitutional rule and free from traditional accountability, regardless of partisan allegiance, do not bear considering.

Our uncodified constitution is a bastion of defence against unruly administrations, and a vanguard of the traditional state in an increasingly uncertain world. Long may our constitution remain.