A powerful parliament is a sure sign of a healthy democracy | thearticle

The drama of Brexit is now taking place on the greatest political stage in the world: the floor of the House of Commons. Britain’s two-party system evolved as it did partly because the

original chamber was the chapel of the Palace of Westminster, so that Members of Parliament sat in choir stalls, opposite one another like choristers. Other parliament buildings may more

obviously resemble theatres, with semi-circular seating arrangements such as those in Congress, but the Commons is uniquely adversarial. Even the present chamber, which is only a century and

a half old, has witnessed parliamentary battles no less bitter than those now taking place over Brexit. Yet it is still true that we may be moving into uncharted waters if the Prime

Minister’s deal fails to secure a majority on Tuesday. In _The Times, _Professor David Howarth of Cambridge claims that the Queen might be forced to dismiss her ministry if Theresa May

refused to resign after a no confidence motion had passed. His solution is a “humble address” from Parliament to the monarch, recommending that she use her powers to choose a new prime

minister. A by-product of our unwritten constitution is that practically anyone may set themselves up as a “constitutional expert”, and of course academics love to present themselves as

objective and neutral. Yet this is rarely the case, and Professor Howarth — a former Liberal Democrat MP — is no exception. Of course it might suit the Remain camp for the Queen to be

brought in to remove from office a Conservative Prime Minister committed to Brexit. But the outrage this would cause in the country would threaten the very survival of the monarchy. Above

all, who would advise the Queen about whom to choose to form a government? Any choice she might make would be seen by half the country as arbitrary and invidious. In reality, such a scenario

would never arise. Mrs May will remain Prime Minister for as long, and only as long, as she can command a majority in the Commons. If she were to lose a vote of confidence in the Commons,

she would make way for a new Conservative leader to be chosen, whom the Queen would in due course ask to form a new government. In the meantime, either Mrs May would remain in office as a

caretaker or, perhaps, her de facto deputy David Lidington would perform that role. Every effort would be made to preserve the Queen from taking any action that could be seen as partisan. We

live in a country that is simultaneously a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. In normal times, these two aspects of our constitutional settlement act in perfect harmony.

Very occasionally, as for example during the Abdication crisis, there is a tension between them. But the beauty of our unwritten constitution — in theory infinitely flexible, in practice

remarkably consistent— is that it ensures that whatever happens, the public can feel confident that the Queen’s Government will be carried on. The monarchy can and occasionally does

intervene, but always going with the grain of public opinion rather than against it. King George V did so in 1931, when the Labour Cabinet split over an economic crisis. The King refused to

accept Ramsay MacDonald’s resignation as Prime Minister and instead asked him to form a National Government in the public interest to deal with the crisis. MacDonald followed the King’s

wishes, went to the country and his coalition duly won the largest majority in British history. A constitutional monarch, in other words, has a duty to preserve parliamentary democracy, even

if this requires active intervention in politics. Professor Howarth’s scenario, by contrast, would require the monarch to defy the results of the 2016 referendum and the 2017 general

election, both of which produced majorities for Brexit. The fact that opinion polls now suggest a majority for some version of Remain is, from a constitutional point of view, neither here

nor there. It would be highly risky, not to say suicidal, for the Queen to remove an administration elected to implement Brexit after a decisive referendum, and replace it with one dedicated

to reversing Brexit, all without a general election. It is increasingly likely that the present impasse in the Commons will ultimately be solved by a compromise to modify Mrs May’s deal.

Such a compromise would probably command support from the great majority of Conservatives, including some who say they will vote against the Government next Tuesday, and a substantial number

of Labour MPs who will put the national interest above party politics. What form the compromise will take is still unclear, but with flexibility on both sides it will surely emerge even

after an initial defeat. Among various possible solutions, Brussels will finally concede to Mrs May a “get-out” clause on the Irish backstop, as should have happened long ago, or Geoffrey

Cox, the Attorney General, could find a legal loophole to enable Britain to abrogate that part of the treaty, in the unlikely event that we find ourselves trapped in it. One thing is clear:

the House of Commons has rarely been more powerful in modern times. The fate of the nation rests with its elected Members of Parliament, all of whom are supposed to act not as delegates but

as representatives. Many are now making independent decisions for the first time in their political careers. This has to be good for democracy and a salutary lesson for those who govern us.