Johnson erodes the Monarchy

The newly appointed prime minister of Great Britain visits, before starting the G-7 summit in Biarritz, the president of France and when they are both talking he places the shoe on his right foot, as if he were in a tavern, on top of one of the mahogany tables that adorn the living room. It is not an ordinary gesture: it defines the personality of the prime minister and shows that he has no education. The English have always distinguished themselves by their elegant forms and their respect for the protocol.

The anecdote is not a coincidence, because Britain has been given a prime minister whose record scares. He began his career as a journalist, then went on to politics, being elected deputy by the Conservative Party; He was subsequently appointed Mayor of London and surprisingly Theresa May, when she was named premier , made him Minister of Foreign Affairs. Which was a serious mistake because he had already become famous for his bravado, his lies and his fantasies always with his neat hair in the wind. But the worst part is that he became the biggest defender of Brexit. This madness that we still don't know where it will lead us is a consequence of an absurd referendum that David Cameron naively organized. If a referendum on any banality is raised, it does not matter whether the yeses win or the noes win, because the end of the world does not depend on it. But what David Cameron did is something much more serious, since he raised a referendum without necessity, whose result decisively conditioned the future of his country. It consisted of asking citizens if they were in favor of continuing in Europe or leaving it. A referendum of this importance cannot be won simply by those who obtain more yeses than not, even if it is by a vote, that is, a minority majority, which is what happened. If a referendum is raised on an issue on which the future of the nation depends, a double majority must be demanded: first, a certain minimum participation figure, such as 70% of the population; and secondly, another majority that, in parliamentary terms would be 2/3 of voters, that would represent approximately 70% of yeses or noes to win the referendum. But whatever the result, if the level of participation or the required majority of voting that I consider necessary for such a referendum is not reached, there would have been no problems in the 2016 referendum, because most of the country would be in favor or against and matter concluded. But it was not so, because there was a valid 71% participation and the result was practically a draw, because the favorable ones to leave Europe were 51.9% while the supporters to follow reached 48.1%. Which divided the British in half. For the rest, it was a kind of political scam, since practically the draw was due to Cameron not campaigning to stay in Europe because he took it for granted.

Well, a referendum that was clearly absurd, poorly posed and with an advertisement in favor of leaving Europe was taken advantage of by Brexit supporters headed by Boris Johnson. Thus, after resigning Theresa May in July 2019, the conservatives chose Johnson as their leader and was appointed by the Queen as prime minister. In his investiture speech in the House of Commons he presented his idea of ​​a hard and fast Brexit. But no one thought at the time that Johnson in many positions had demonstrated his lack of respect for the rules and his tendency to falsify the reality of the facts. He has dared to do something that since Cromwell nobody had dared to do, that is, to suspend the British Parliament, which is the mother of all the parliaments of the world , thus giving a true coup d'etat. Hitler also got rid of, after winning an election, the Reichstag burning him with a subterfuge. But that can be understood in a totalitarian regime like the one Hitler created. Britain is the inventor of parliamentary democracy and closing it is an event that goes beyond its borders. Hence, closing the British Parliament to make Johnson a dictator, even for a few weeks, is the most serious thing that has happened in the history of the European Union and its consequences are very dangerous. First, it has divided Britain into two parts. Secondly, the EU itself is in danger because it can disintegrate because of this. And thirdly, the consequences on the world economy will be terrible, as we will see especially in Spain.

The performance of this crazy politician is unconstitutional and stupid, because Parliament always has a break after the summer of two weeks. But what he wanted to prove, closing it for at least five weeks, is that he can submit the House of Commons to his whim. As constitutionalist Thomas Smith points out, "the highest and absolute power of the Kingdom of England is represented by Parliament."

Consequently, Johnson's behavior, which was born in New York by the way and closely resembles President Trump, is not only a mockery of Parliament to have his hands free before October 31, when the agreed Brexit expires, but which calls into question the very existence of the Monarchy, since the Queen has apparently fallen into a trap . It is true that the Kings of the parliamentary monarchies lost their powers over time, their functions being mostly symbolic today. A great theorist of the British Monarchy, Walter Bagehot, said that the king of England has the function of "being consulted, encouraged and prevented." But it has no autonomous decision-making power.

Therefore, in March 1990, when the Belgian Government presented a law passed by Parliament that allowed abortion, a problem was created with King Baudouin, since abortion went against his religious beliefs. In view of which, the Monarch asked for a solution to be able to sanction that law. After several attempts to convince the King that it was "a due act", a trick was used to apply Article 82 of the Belgian Constitution, which regulates the temporary incapacity of the Monarch. The Government of Wilfred Martens temporarily assumed the regency and a few days later King Baudouin regained the throne, with the agreement of the majority of Parliament.

However, in the present British case it was difficult to find a similar solution to overcome the problem of the Queen's authorization regarding the temporary suspension of the British Parliament. Thus, Johnson has forced the Queen not only to suspend Britain's most democratic institution, but has also jeopardized the legality of the Queen's act of authorization , as we will see.

According to Bagehot, the Crown can only be the symbol of the unity of the Nation if it maintains its neutrality and for this it cannot enter into partisan struggles. The nation, says Bagehot, "has two parties, but the Crown is not one of them, a condition for everyone, whatever party they are." However, the question that British news has put on the table is whether the Queen, like the other kings of the parliamentary monarchies, has a "reserve power" that can be used when there is a blocking situation in the country and only the king, neutral and moderating power as Constant said, could help solve the problem. In this sense, Bagehot writes the following: "Here is an important truth and an eternal principle that must be established: no power of the earth is unlimited, neither that of the people, nor that of the men who speak their representatives, nor the of kings, whatever title they reign for. "

Johnson has attributed a power he does not have, clearly violating the British Constitution. The question that arises then is the following: could the Queen have refused to authorize the unconstitutional closure of Parliament? In a situation like this, I believe in the reserve power of parliamentary monarchies, which in Spain used King Juan Carlos in 1981 and Felipe VI in 2017 , but the British constitutionalist doctrine is not so clear with respect to a crisis situation or lock I will point out two important opinions. On the one hand, that of those who maintain that the Queen had no choice but to sign the suspension of Parliament, as Lord Esher told Jorge V: "If the constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility means something, it imposes on the King the obligation of signing his own death sentence, in case it is presented by a minister at the head of a parliamentary majority. If this fundamental principle is falsified, the end of the Monarchy arises on the horizon. " But on the other hand there is a position of British doctrine that, as our best constitutionalist Manuel García-Pelayo points out, is the opposite: "It is not excluded in principle that in some circumstances the King acquires powers that are now merely formal. This is because below its specific functions, the King is considered the guardian of the Constitution, and in this respect the majority of British traders with more or less reservations, and always based on the exclusion of partisan criteria by the King, admit their intervention when it comes to situations that subvert the essence of the British Constitution. Thus, Jennings tells us that 'the King can deny his assent (and therefore make him resign to the premier or dissolve the Parliament) when the premier works Machiavellically or for sectarian purposes' ".

We do not know which of the two positions will end up imposing, but in any case, the British Monarchy thanks to Boris Johnson begins to be debated.

Jorge de Esteban is a professor of Constitutional Law and president of the Editorial Board of EL MUNDO.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

• Europe
• Theresa May
• Spain
• Adolf Hitler
• Boris johnson
• David Cameron
• European Union
• London
• France
• Philip VI
• Juan Carlos I
• Columnists
• Opinion

Quia! Everything will be wonderful

Turn of the pageDoñana and the presidential lynx

The Gang Walk Vacant Spain