Thoughts on a Present Constitutional Crisis in a United Kingdom

NOTE: The object next expresses a views of a sold named as a author and does not indispensably simulate a position of a WRF as a whole.

SPECIAL NOTE: It is singular that a WRF posts blogs about subjects on that there is clever feud among a members.  On occasion, we do post such blogs. For example,  on Dec 16, 2017, we did post – right on this website – a blog traffic with a preference of a U.S. supervision to commend Jerusalem as a collateral of Israel. But we attempted to make certain that a emanate was dealt with sincerely – in that case, we sought to accomplish this by carrying dual conflicting perspectives presented, that of an Israeli WRF member and that of a Palestinian WRF member. That blog competence be seen here –

We posted that blog given we believed that we best served a members – and a tellurian church – by display that a Bible and Reformed theological beliefs are directly applicable to a many argumentative and formidable issues Christians face.

It is in this suggestion that we now post both this blog about Brexit and another one about a probable impeachment of an American President.

These blogs were combined by WRF members who have special perspectives on a matters being discussed and a blogs themselves have been delicately reviewed by countless members of a WRF leadership.  We trust that a blogs do not “take sides” nonetheless instead yield biblical beliefs that we trust are applicable to a matters being discussed.  In this blog, we titillate a readers to note delicately a 5 specific points that a author creates in a march of a blog.  Those points, taken together with a sum declare of Scripture, competence be of assistance to a members who contingency bargain with these kinds of issues, no matter that side of a Brexit matter they take.


Thoughts on a Present Constitutional Crisis in a United Kingdom

Rev. Paul Yeulett, Pastor
WRF Congregational Member Grove Chapel, Camberwell Grove
London, England

I have put together a array of thoughts in propinquity to a benefaction fundamental crisis, that seems  to be deepening with any flitting day, and that will certainly have consequences of a inclusive and maybe harmful character, nonetheless nothing of us can envision with any certainty what these consequences competence be.

The evident incentive that caused me to write down these thoughts was a new seductiveness listened in a Supreme Court, in that eleven comparison judges unanimously ruled that a Prime Minister’s recommendation to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament, between 9 Sep and 14 October, was unlawful. we do not write as any kind of fundamental or authorised expert, nonetheless ever given a 2016 Referendum I, no doubt like many others, have had my seductiveness in such matters keenly awakened. we make these observations as a lifelong and zealous reader of British story and, above and over that, as a Christian who binds to a management and honesty of a Bible. It is out of a enterprise to know a benefaction predicament in a light of a history, and in a light of a Word of God, that we write as we do here.



The British Constitution has grown organically over many centuries, and nonetheless no inhabitant structure could ever be described as ‘perfect’ – we all live in a fallen, injured world, and any tellurian complement of supervision or organization partakes of this injured impression – a testimony of story is that a Constitution has been radically healthy. This organic enrichment resembles a expansion of an unborn child in a womb and a successive expansion following birth: a essential plans and impression of a Constitution can be traced behind into a apart past, in some senses before Magna Carta (1215) or even a Norman Conquest (1066). But over a next centuries that Constitution has spin some-more mature and worldly as a commonwealth has grown, as several hurdles have been faced, and as a inhabitant impression has been shaped; done in sold by a teachings of a Bible. 

In vocalization of ‘the nation’ we am of march good wakeful that a United Kingdom currently consists of 4 countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. we have no enterprise to irritate jingoist passions within any of these 4 countries. The United Kingdom stays a unitary state, not a sovereign state (like a United States or Germany), nor a congress (like Switzerland). It has, historically, been a profoundly staid and moneyed unitary state, and competence that enlarged continue. 

In vocalization of a British Constitution as an organism, we should initial observe that a soundness of any mammal is recorded by energetic and organic communication between a member parts. In a tellurian body, for example, a brain, heart and lungs all need to work according to plan, and in symbiotic unity, for a whole physique to be alive and good – this of march is a estimable over- simplification, nonetheless it illustrates a indicate adequately. 

In a Constitution there are several branches that need to co-function in an equivalent way. These contain (1) a executive (Her Majesty’s Government that consists of a Prime Minister and his Cabinet), (2) a legislature (Parliament), (3) a law (the law courts) and (4) a people. Most fundamental experts would not embody a people as a ‘branch’ in a same clarity as a other three, nonetheless in a benefaction conditions a stress of a people can perceptibly be overlooked. More to a point, in propinquity to a initial 3 branches in particular, or a 3 ‘organs of state’, there is not a parsimonious subdivision between them that there is in other constitutions, many particularly a United States; rather there has been, and is, a set of formidable nonetheless nurse relations that have grown over time and that establish their mutual interaction.

The delicately offset impression of a British Constitution can be illustrated by a approach in that a element of sovereignty can rightly, nonetheless variously, be attributed to any of these branches. (1) The Monarch, in whose name a Government carries out executive powers, is designated a ‘Sovereign’. But (2) a supervision of Parliament is a element that all fundamental experts continue to emphasise, and in a benefaction resources this element is being heartily underlined. At a same time, (3) inaugurated Members of Parliament are accepted to be member of a people, who are themselves ‘sovereign’ in a clarity that they commission Parliament to act on their behalf. And

(4) nonetheless a wording of ‘sovereignty’ is reduction mostly practical to a law courts, a ‘rule of law’ is a word with a enlarged and eminent story in Britain. In addition, a wording of kingdom permeates all matters juridical: comparison lawyers are ennobled with a pretension ‘Queen’s Counsel’ and even prisoners still offer ‘at Her Majesty’s pleasure’. 

This fourfold form of sovereignty, in and of itself, does not foster a mutual contradiction. On a contrary, it is an muster of a finely offset inlet of a mature, clever and (for a many part) well-functioning Constitution. There is no fundamental foe between a 4 branches; a supervision of any of them is, instead, a supervision of a whole physique gracious as noticed from 4 conflicting angles, or aspects. But a sound functioning of that whole physique gracious depends on their mutual relations being righteously accepted and observed. When tensions between any of them strech a certain vicious level, a probability of mishap or even crevasse is increased.

The same element binds loyal when we demeanour during any of these branches individually. For example, when we cruise Parliament, it becomes transparent that there are sub-components that need to observe jointly nurse and finely tuned relationships. There are a House of Lords, a House of Commons, a Speakers of both Houses, a Parliamentary Committees and indeed a whole machine of a Civil Service. Additionally, there are several kinds of overlie between a viscera of state, and within them, that need not of themselves outcome in conflicts of interest. For example, a executive (the Prime Minister and a Government) themselves go to a legislature (Parliament).

It fast becomes clear, in summary, that when we cruise a whole doubt of ‘government’ in Britain, we are looking during a hugely formidable and perplexing system, nonetheless one that has – a peculiar detonation or dual notwithstanding, generally in a years 1642-60 – continued with a conspicuous miss of disturbance.

It becomes equally transparent that we are witnessing a identical kind of detonation during a benefaction time. The seizure of Parliamentary business by a antithesis parties, a capitulation (or active encouragement) of a Speaker of a House in permitting this seizure, a withdrawal of a whip from 21 MPs on a Government benches, a forcing of a Prime Minister’s palm to ask from Brussels a serve prolongation to Article 50, and a new authorised routine in propinquity to prorogation, are all signally symptomatic of a kind of ‘toxic shock’ that is convulsing a whole physique politic.


What is a means of this crisis? It would be unequivocally easy simply to contend ‘Brexit’, or some-more precisely, ‘the 2016 Referendum and a aftermath’. We can inspect a integrity of this response briefly. It is definitely reasonable to advise that a benefaction predicament has been enlarged and clever by a inability and/or rejection of inaugurated Members of Parliament to honour a outcome of a Referendum, notwithstanding a fact that a immeasurable infancy of them belonged to domestic parties that settled in their manifestos that a outcome would be honoured. It is also reasonable to advise that a 2017 General Election, evidently called in sequence to strengthen Theresa May’s palm in securing a clever Brexit deal, had a conflicting outcome of significantly weakening her position, not usually in negotiations with Brussels nonetheless in gaining a support of a House of Commons. This was a debility that Mrs May unavoidably bequeathed to her successor, and a new misunderstanding in a Commons would never have taken place had a 2017 Election delivered a transparent infancy to any party.

But story teaches us that causation is a distant some-more difficult and nuanced matter than one eventuality or even a array of closely associated events. It is not improper to contend that a assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was a ‘cause’ of World War One. But in and of itself it is a desperately unsound explanation. Somehow, we need to explain how it was that a murder, in Bosnia, of a Austrian successor to a throne, by a Serbian gunman, resulted usually a few weeks after in British, French and German soldiers opposed any other a thousand miles to a north-west, opposite a Marne, and afterwards ‘digging in’ for a serve 4 terrible years. A acceptable reason of given World War One pennyless out contingency certainly go behind many further, to 1871, to 1848, to 1815. And even beyond.

So if we wish to know given there is a benefaction fundamental predicament in Britain, we need during a unequivocally slightest to ask what resulted in a Leave opinion of 2016, and given a Referendum was called in a initial place; indeed given Britain found itself a member of a European Union to start with. That necessitates an bargain of a story of a European Union itself – unequivocally fast we are into a immeasurable and strenuous array of subjects.

It was always expected to be a box that a materialisation of a bulk of ‘Brexit’ would means outrageous convulsions both nationally and internationally, and could never be solved on a self-evident behind of an envelope. But like a dual World Wars, a Brexit predicament – that competence nonetheless be a unequivocally enlarged approach indeed from anything that could be called fortitude – has delivered an almighty jar to a socio-political pattern of Britain. The infirmity of a British Constitution, faced with such a critical jarring, was always expected to come lax during a seams.

Two other events of a final decade, mostly neglected by a infancy of British citizens, have serve contributed to a conditions in that a fundamental mishap competence spin some-more likely:

The initial was a origination of a Supreme Court in 2009, that resulted in a flourishing subdivision and intensity liberty of a top authorised authorities in a land: a pierce towards a American model. Prior to this, a ultimate right of seductiveness went to a Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Law Lords, who themselves sat in a House of Lords. This is another instance of a overlie and ethereal change of energy that formerly existed between a viscera of state, and that has now been ruptured.

The second was a flitting of a Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA) in 2011, following a arrangement of a Coalition between a Conservatives and a Liberal Democrats. The domestic proclivity behind a Act was to forestall a splintering of a Coalition and, it could pretty be argued, it was a success insofar as a Coalition remained total for 5 years. But a Act private a prior privilege energy of a Prime Minister to ask Her Majesty to disintegrate Parliament in sequence to call a ‘snap’ General Election. An Election could usually be called, mid-term, on dual conditions:

(1) if a Government mislaid a opinion of confidence; (2) if two- thirds of MPs inspected an Election. Under a benefaction circumstances, that are so conflicting to a resources that existed 8 years ago, a FTPA exerts a gloomy outcome on a domestic routine in Parliament.


The many estimable fundamental doubt during benefaction relates to a new box examined in a Supreme Court, resolved on 24 September. The fact that such a conference took place – not merely a outcome that was inspected – threatens to broach a deathblow to age-old fundamental conventions. 

The doubt underneath perspective was either a Prime Minister asked Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a five-week duration in a autumn of 2019 in sequence to stymie a House of Commons, to forestall them from flitting inspection on a Government’s policies in a duration heading adult to 31 October, a date on that a United Kingdom is (still), by law, due to exit a European Union. Did a Prime Minister misemploy a energy of prorogation, in sequence to overpower reasonable discuss in a Commons?

The critical doubt that needs to be answered here is either a preference to prorogue is ‘justiciable’ – that is, is it a doubt that a law is efficient to weigh and resolve? Can a justice of law establish that a recommendation given to a Queen by her Prime Minister – given constitutionally it falls to a Sovereign to prorogue Parliament – was misleading? The fact that such a box is examined allows a probability that a Prime Minister could be announced to be dubious a Sovereign and so behaving … dishonourably? Or maybe ‘lying’? This kind of denunciation can be shouted out on radio and in a papers, even nonetheless it can't be settled in Parliament. we will come behind to this doubt later.

Now that a Supreme Court has indeed resolved that a Prime Minister indeed acted unlawfully in advising Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament, a hugely poignant plea to fundamental gathering has been upheld. The recommendation that passes between a Prime Minister and a Crown – and presumably it flows in both directions – will now be theme to a office of a law courts. It becomes receptive to a inspection of lawyers rather than being accepted as a domestic judgment.

At this indicate it should be settled that lawyers, of course, are compulsory to practice their visualisation no some-more and no reduction than ministers of a crown. Indeed, a aloft anyone climbs in any profession, a some-more compulsory it becomes that they are efficient to practice sound judgment. After all, a Head of a Judiciary in England and Wales is designated ‘Lord Chief Justice’! It is a credo that a whole visualisation of visualisation is unconditionally embedded within a unequivocally wording of ‘justice’, ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘judiciary’. What is more, a essential impression of British law – a eminence between chronological Common Law in this republic and a some-more codified Roman/Napoleonic forms of law that are practised on a continent is a unequivocally critical care here – implies if anything a even greater requirement obligatory on British lawyers to practice advantageous judgment.

But a Sovereign and a Prime Minister are also compulsory to practice visualisation – conjunction some-more nor reduction than lawyers. And this is a unequivocally critical point: Britain is a fundamental monarchy, not a commonwealth in that a Supreme Court is a top management in a land. Whilst it is loyal that a Queen’s ‘sovereignty’ is mostly suggested and ceremonial, she stays a Head of State and she retains a right to practice her sovereignty. There is a disproportion between carrying suggested supervision and carrying no supervision whatsoever. Conversations between a Sovereign and a Prime Minister (she has now been served by fourteen primary ministers, commencement with Winston Churchill) have for generations been regarded as matters of a biggest privacy and, in a sense, sacredness. They share matters of a domestic impression that are, by convention, accepted to be outward a subtract of lawyers. It is practically insincere that a bond of trust exists between a Sovereign and a Prime Minister, her arch confidant in matters of government. It is a bond of trust into that meddling eyes, even those  of a top courts in a land, have not formerly been available to peep.

But now a new, menacing, asocial and hyper-litigious open enlightenment is melancholy to take over. Anyone with a motives, and a means, to overturn an unpopular preference of a Government will be increasingly speedy to do so by a courts. That is given a statute of a Supreme Court should be regarded as ground-breaking, a seismic jar that has rocked a British Constitution.


The above selection is from Isaiah 59:14. All a considerations we have minute above lead us to what is certainly a many critical doubt of all: given is a British Constitution so fragile? And given
now, if it has endured so tightly given Gothic times, is it in such a palsied, sclerotic condition? 


The answer that we disciple here is that there has been an essential and widespread relapse of trust within a fabric of society, with a many critical and shocking reverberations within a physique politic. In vocalization of ‘trust’, we need to see a attribute between ‘trust’ and ‘truth’ that is distant some-more than a matter of semantics. When trust breaks down, people some-more straightforwardly credit one another  of not explanation a truth. Another approach to demeanour during a conditions is to notice a relapse of ‘good faith’ – a Latin base of a word like ‘confidence’ implies that faith is exercised towards someone or something. No organic attribute between any tellurian beings, or organisation of tellurian beings, from a chief family to Parliament and a Supreme Court, can flower when ‘good faith’ has been undermined, where mutual certainty is not present.

‘Good faith’ is a executive prejudiced of this whole discussion. It is constitutionally scold to state that a Government was not firm by a outcome of a 2016 Referendum; that a referendum should be noticed as ‘advisory’ rather than binding. But here is an instance where a practice or a profanation of ‘good faith’ comes into pointy focus. David Cameron, a Prime Minister during a time of a Referendum, betrothed a people that a Government would practice a preference of a Referendum. Constitutionally, he had no right to make such a promise. But he did say this and in so doing combined a clarity of requirement and expectancy on a prejudiced of a British people. Moreover, no prior referendum in British story had ever been dishonoured. An movement competence be constitutionally authorised while also being domestic ‘dynamite’.

Such would be a box if any supervision were to contend to a British people during some indicate in a future, ‘By a way, a 2016 Referendum was usually advisory and therefore we have motionless to omit a outcome and overturn Article 50.’

But we should see usually how many bad faith, even bad blood, is benefaction during a moment. When certain politicians seem on a BBC programme Question Time, they are not delayed in accusing a Prime Minister, or other politicians, of ‘lying’. They will occupy a denunciation of ‘lying’ distant some-more straightforwardly than would have been a box usually a few years ago. And there is a tangible clarity that some of them are doing so with uncontrollable relish. Why competence this be? Because MPs do not, and cannot, use such denunciation in a House of Commons. When Ian Blackford, a SNP personality in Westminster, shouted out that a Prime Minister, Theresa May, was a ‘liar’, he was strongly reprimanded by a Speaker, to whom he replied, ‘Out of pleasantness to yourself, we withdraw’ (12 Feb 2019).

This is a point: pleasantness is celebrated in a House of Commons as prejudiced of a wider design of constitutional convention. Members of Parliament impute to one another as ‘the Honourable Member’ or ‘the Right Honourable Member’ as a outcome of long-standing parliamentary, fundamental convention.

There is an determined formula of honour, pleasantness and honour – even in some cases esteem – that has characterised a British Constitution for centuries.

This formula is now being stretched to violation point. When a House of Commons reconvened on 25 September, sour and sarcastic scenes were promote for millions of viewers to see. Whilst a letter of a law competence have been celebrated insofar as no MP breached a specific code, it was definitely transparent that a spirit of parliamentary sermon was being violated. The Speaker was definitely fit in instigation a Commons to this outcome a following day, and for a time during least, relations culture ensued.

But this is usually a tip of a unwholesome iceberg. Whilst Honourable Members competence good agree to parliamentary gathering while they are sitting on a immature benches of a Commons, once they strech for their smartphones afterwards any fake to parliamentary gathering flies out of a window. Social media allows them – and everybody else – a event to opening their hashtagged spleens, on Twitter, on YouTube, on Instagram, on an ever-increasing array of channels. This is a means that should not be underestimated. On amicable media, patience is expel off, and giveaway rein is given to a crawl of black bile. Politicians conflict and denounce other politicians, and their army of supporters voraciously tuck in. Language descends to a spin of a playground, both in terms of a bullying inlet and a young imbecility.

The relapse of trust is accompanied by a arise of annoy and hatred. It is a same phenomenon, noticed from a conflicting angle. It is not a materialisation that is limited to politicians. But during a impulse they seem to be display a way.


The British Constitution, in a essential character, competence not tarry a benefaction crisis. It competence eventually be remade to spin some-more like a American model, in that a several branches of a physique politic, being constitutionally separated, practice extremely some-more eccentric power. Consequently, disputes between these branches are common, so that a whole machine of US Government can be close down for days or even weeks on end. Perhaps, in time, a radical change to a Constitution competence be unavoidable. This competence be a largest singular effect of a recent  story of British domestic rendezvous with her European neighbours.

One good disproportion between a British and American Constitutions is that a former is unwritten, while a latter is combined (as are a many Amendments). The phonetic British Constitution, like a British antipathy for temperament cards, is for many a means for quirky self- satisfaction. That a Constitution is ‘unwritten’ is of march usually a prejudiced truth. Statute Law, by a unequivocally nature, is legislation inspected by Acts of Parliament that finds a approach onto a ‘Statute Books’. Works of management on a Constitution, such as those by Bagehot and Dicey, and Erskine May, a ‘Bible of Parliamentary Procedure’, are of march (lengthy) combined documents. Acts of Parliament of useful significance, such as a Bill of Rights of 1689, roughly extract of a impression of a combined constitution. But there is no singular request in existence temperament a pretension ‘The Constitution of a United Kingdom’, not nonetheless during any rate.

Whether there ever will be competence not seem like a terribly critical argument. Indeed, we competence think, if a combined structure delivers a happier set of formula than an phonetic one, afterwards given not start essay it immediately! But a indicate here is simply that a British complement has worked satisfactorily for several centuries with an phonetic constitution, not usually given of a trust and imagination of fundamental scholars, nonetheless some-more importantly given of a practice of decency, honour and essential ‘good faith’ opposite a whole physique politic.

Ultimately, this ‘good faith’ among tellurian beings can't exist though a strongly hold value system, a universe perspective that is morally common by people and communities. The biggest change on British society, for many of a time given a Constitution began to take shape, has been Biblical Christianity. The truly Biblical character of that Christianity reached a round in a time of a Reformation and a Puritans, in a sixteenth and seventeenth century. The unequivocally essence of a commonwealth was shaped during those centuries, and a fundamental developments that took place from a late 1600s to a early 1900s were a fruit of abounding devout blessings. The good reconstruction of a eighteenth century, when George Whitefield, John Wesley and so many others preached to a multitudes, combined an sourroundings in that this commonwealth was spared from a kind of bloody  revolutions that shook so many of continental Europe.

In essay these things we am not indulging in some kind of jingoistic nationalism, conjunction would we disremember a ashamed episodes of British history. And nationalism is a unequivocally conflicting thing to patriotism. A loyal patriot, firm to his commonwealth as to his possess family, competence good trust in his heart that his republic is a best republic in a world, nonetheless he understands given adults of another republic would feel a same about their own country. When we hear a French, American, German or even aged Soviet inhabitant anthems being played; when we hear a delivery of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, or Flower of Scotland, we can feel as altered as we am by God save a Queen – or even some-more so. A jingoist is unqualified of experiencing such sympathies.

But a honour, goodness and good faith of that we have combined can't be disconnected from a Christian accord that prevailed in Britain – in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, during these many infirm years. The Bible worked a approach into a inhabitant alertness of these countries and became prejudiced of their DNA. This happened with and though Acts of Parliament – declare a conflicting narratives of revision and reconstruction opposite these countries. The particular essence of Christian declare in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is pleasing testimony to a approach in that God has worked variously among conflicting peoples in conflicting places.

Now that prevalent accord is being altered over recognition, hideously disfigured. A lady gives birth to a child and is afterwards announced to be a man, and wants to insist that a child never had a mother. This is where we are. We now seem to be accelerating towards an epoch like that described during a finish of a Book of Judges, where there was no aristocrat in Israel and any male did what is right in his possess steer (Jdg. 21:25).

The Prophet Isaiah spoke to a people of Judah, 7 hundred years before a birth of Christ:

Ah, corrupted nation, a people brimful with iniquity, brood of evildoers, children who bargain corruptly! They have secluded a LORD, they have despised a Holy One of Israel, they are definitely estranged. Why will we still be struck down? Why will we continue to rebel? The whole conduct is sick, and a whole heart faint. From a solitary of a feet even to a head, there is no soundness in it, nonetheless bruises and sores and tender wounds; they are not pulpy out or firm adult or malleable with oil. (Isa. 1:4-6)

This seems an accurate outline of where we are today. As tellurian beings, done in a picture of God, reject God and a explanation he gives, they slip serve and serve towards destruction. The unapproachable nations and empires of a ancient universe exist no longer. It is time to review Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, and to review Augustine’s City of God.

May a LORD God himself spin and have mercy. The God of a Covenant, and he alone, always keeps good faith with his people, by his Servant and Son, a Lord Jesus Christ.

Article source:

2020 © Presbyterian Church of the Philippines. Crafted with love by SiteOrigin.
Scroll to top

tạp chí gia đình tạp chí mẹ và bé tư vấn xây nhà