Principal Actors in British Politics-71-79.pdf

B. Principal Actors in British Politics Walter Bagehot, a political theorist and editor of The Economist (1860-1877) claimed that the British Constitution was divided into two branches. The monarchy represents the “dignified” branch, symbolizing the State through ceremony and pomp. The government –...

B. Principal Actors in British Politics Walter Bagehot, a political theorist and editor of The Economist (1860-1877) claimed that the British Constitution was divided into two branches. The monarchy represents the “dignified” branch, symbolizing the State through ceremony and pomp. The government – comprising Parliament, the cabinet, and the civil service – represents the “efficient” branch. Its main task is to run the country by passing laws and providing public services. a). The “Dignified” Branch: the Monarchy i. Foundations. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchical State, one of only twelve remaining monarchies in Europe. The monarchy has held firm – 194 with one 11-year gap – since the start of the 9 century. From a terminological viewpoint, “the th Crown” bears two meanings. The most obvious is that which refers to the Monarch who holds office and personifies the State as Head of State. The second embraces the Executive branch, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Ministers with the Civil Service who exercise governmental powers in the name of or on behalf of the State. At present, emphasis is placed on the first meaning. The foundations of the British monarchy pre-date the Norman invasion. They run back to King Alfred. Well into the 17 century, British monarchs claimed to rule the land by divine th right. An expression of this doctrine may be found in a work written by Robert Filmer (1588- 1653), entitled Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings (published posthumously, in 1680). According to Filmer, the Bible – and more precisely the Book of Genesis – laid out a perfect system of sovereignty. In line with the author’s views on patriarchalism (the natural subordination children owe to parents), Filmer claimed that the Creator bequeathed all his earthly power to Adam, who in turn passed it down to Noah, through the Davidian kings, and all the way down to King Charles I and his posterity. The upheavals of the Stuart dynasty in the mid-17 century – leading to the Glorious Revolution (1688-89) and ensuing adoption of th the Bill of Rights (1689) – put a definitive end to these claims. Indeed, the civil war that led to the execution of Charles I was a battle over the origin and rights of the King’s authority, rather than its existence. One could even argue that since Oliver Cromwell was succeeded as “Lord Protector” by his own son, before the return of Charles II in 1660, the so-called interregnum might be considered as a brief usurpation of the Stuart dynasty by the House of Cromwell. From a theoretical viewpoint, John Locke (1632-1704), put paid to Filmer’s theories in the first part of his Two Treatises of Government (1689). Refuting Filmer’s theories, Locke claimed that the origins of sovereignty lie in the people who then resort to a conditional delegation of their natural rights to a government, the only source of legitimacy. ii. Powers. English history is in large part an account of Parliament’s rise of power. As such, it can safely be said today that, “The Queen reigns, but does not rule”. Whilst it is true that the Queen appoints the prime minister and that no law can come into force without royal assent, 194 The others being the Principality of Andorra, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Principality of Monaco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the State of the Vatican. Of these twelve monarchies, only seven are in states of more than 1,000 square miles. These figures are to be put in contrast with 19 century Europe when most of Europe was governed th by royal dynasties. 71 the monarchy represents an incarnation of historical memory rather than a real exercise of power. In line with the ornamental role of the monarchy, it is noteworthy that coronations and burials grew ever more elaborate after the First World War, in part to rectify the farcical state of royal tradition in the 19 century and in part to put a stamp of allegiance on the monarchy th 195 from the British working people. The powers of the Queen have been crafted over time by 196 statute, case law, and conventions. The Queen occupies the throne by virtue of statute. The rules of succession to the throne largely stem from the dilemma facing the monarchy at the end of the short – and childless – reign of William III (1689-1702). The prospective Queen, William’s sister-in-law, princess Anne of Denmark, was to succeed. She had just lost her only surviving child in 1700 (having been pregnant 18 times between 1683 and 1700). With no issue to either William or Anne (who reigned from 1702 to 1714), succession had become a crucial matter. It was feared that the supporters of James II – the deposed king (and last Stuart monarch in direct male line – might make a move for the throne. The Act of Settlement 1701 would effectively prevent this. The Act provided that the Crown was to pass to Sophia, Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I, and to “the heirs of her body, being Protestants”. This explains how Sophia’s son, George Ludwig, Elector of Hanover, acceded to the throne in 1714 as George I (despite there being 57 persons – Roman Catholics – closer by rules of inheritance). Among the many statutes that govern the Queen’s reign, we mention: (i) the three Regency Acts (1937, 1943, and 1953) that provide for certain contingencies that might affect the monarch (e.g. illness, incapacity of mind or body); (ii) the Royal Title Act 1953 that established the exact title of the Queen as “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith”; (iii) the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 that governs the Sovereign Grant (i.e. the resources provided for use by the Royal Household in support of the Queen’s official duties, “thereby enabling Her Majesty to perform Her duties as Sovereign effectively, efficiently and with appropriate dignity”; (iv) the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 that made succession not depend on gender, i.e. the rules of succession were changed so that sons would no longer have precedence as heir, regardless of their age (thus setting aside the common law rule of Male Preference Primogeniture). 197 Women now have equal right to succeed to the throne under what is now Absolute Primogeniture. A striking example of case law defining the monarch’s role may be found in the Case of Proclamations 1611, concerning the struggle between the monarch’s effort to rule by prerogative power (or “proclamation”) and Parliament’s desire to restrain the monarch’s autonomy though statute. In this particular case – decided under the rule of James I – Chief Justice Coke held that the monarch could not create an offence that did not exist before. The 195 Scores of examples exist. The coronation of King George IV in July 1821, meant to outshine that of Napoleon, began late. Prize-fighters were employed as bouncers to keep peace among the distinguished but belligerent guests. The coronation of Queen Victoria, held in June 1838, was marred by a pitifully poor choir. The clergy lost their place in the order of service. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury put the ring on finger of the Queen that was too big for it. 196 The tabloid press was yet to come but early 20 century newsprint had a stake in increasing the popularity th of the monarchy among British working people. 197 The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 received royal assent on 25 April 2013. The Act also put an end to a ban on a future monarch marrying a Catholic, a stipulation dating back 300 years. For the complete text of the Act, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/contents/enacted/data.htm. The Commonwealth countries agreed in principle to the changes to these rules on succession on October 28, 2011 (Perth Agreement). They subsequently enacted relevant legislation in their domestic countries: for Canada, see Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, (S.C. 2013, c. 6)(assented to March 27, 2013). 72 King only had those prerogative powers which the common law already recognized: “… [T]he King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offense by his proclamation, which was not an offence before without Parliament…. Note, the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm, …; also the King cannot create any offence by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offence before, for that was to change the law, and to make an offence which was not… “… [T]he King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. By way of convention, the monarch always acts on the advice of Ministers and never vetoes a statute enacted by Parliament. iii. Appraisal. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth, ascended her various thrones whilst vacationing in Kenya on February 6, 1952, at the age of 25. Her father, King George VI, had died of lung cancer in London in the morning, aged just 56. By the time Elizabeth returned to London, the Accession Council had met and proclaimed her sovereign. She was crowned 198 Queen Elizabeth II more than one year after her accession, on June 2, 1953. At the time of 199 Elizabeth’s accession, Europe was still reeling from World War II. Whilst Britain had been on the winning side in this tragic conflict, one of the most unifying events in its history, the population was still confronted with food and newsprint rationing. The economy was war- weakened and its influence waning. From a geopolitical perspective, the world was still dominated by the likes of Harry Truman, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. In 1952, British men still did national service and the country was involved in the Korean War. Despite India having left the empire in 1947, Elizabeth could travel the world without leaving the lands she ruled. Having said all this, what can be assessed today of the Queen’s achievements beyond near-perfect knowledge of horse breeding and enthusiasm for Corgi dogs? Some reduce the monarchy to “hatches, matches, and dispatches” (christenings, weddings and funerals). On the positive side, it can be said that Elizabeth’s 60+ years on the throne highlight a matchless gift, even by British standards, of duty. Raising discipline and discretion to an art form, the Queen is known for staying above the political fray and masking her feelings with particular cleverness, although at times causing the dismay of the population when, as at the death of Princess Diana in 1997, she kept silence for five days amidst an unusual climate of public outpouring of emotion. The Queen is generally considered to have been a steady, 200 calming figure. She is viewed today with utmost respect both by reason of her age and as a reassuring symbol of “continuity” in a constantly changing world, today, more than ever beset by economic hardship. The Queen has also shown herself to be adaptable. She scrapped her royal yacht without replacement and today fills in a tax form on her private fortune. Some 201 arguably attribute the Queen’s popularity to the fact that she holds a prominent public position in a world where women are still grossly under-represented (in legislatures and cabinets). In fact, there has been a reigning queen in Britain for 125 of the past 176 years. For Linda Colley 198 The Accession Council comprises all members of the Privy Council, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, Commonwealth representatives, as well “Other Principal Gentlemen of Quality”. 199 The lengthy reign of Elizabeth II (1952 to the present) is to be compared with that of her ancestor, Queen Victoria, who reigned from 1837 to 1901. 200 Such was the outpouring of emotion that when Diana’s brother, the Earl of Spencer, delivered a stunning eulogy in Westminster Abbey, in effect challenging the moral legitimacy of the House of Windsor, wild applause broke out outside the Abbey, sounding to those inside. 201 The Queen and Prince Charles remain exempt from inheritance tax. 73 of Princeton University, “This may be particularly important in European polities that are largely Protestant. Catholicism allows for a Queen of Heaven. But States that underwent the Protestant Reformation had substantially to abandon that belief. This may help to explain why five of the seven sizeable European states retaining monarchies – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK – are traditionally Protestant. Lacking official cults of the Virgin Mary, images of females to adore in churches and processions, these Protestant countries may have experienced a greater need to develop secular substitutes of sorts: real life royal mothers to venerate”. 202 Admittedly, the “dignified” branch suffered a rocky patch in the 1990s. The Queen herself dubbed one year as an “annus horribilis” after Windsor Castle burst into flames and several of her children’s marriages fell apart: Charles and Diana Spencer, Anne and , Andrew and Sarah Ferguson (nicknamed “Airmiles Andy” and “Freebie Fergie”). The tabloid press relished in a rich diet of available gossip. The monarchy alienated the public and appeared to be in an advanced state of decomposition. This was quickly forgotten, however, when the younger royals took to the limelight, making the monarchy relevant again, rather than an antiquity: the wedding of Prince William and Catherine (Kate) (Duke and Duchess of Cambridge), followed by the wedding of Prince Harry and Megan Markle (Duke and Duchess of Sussex) on May 19, 2018. To many, the Queen’s family troubles even brought her closer to her subjects, making her seem like “one of us” and increasing public sympathy for her. If the question were asked: “What has the Queen done?”, it could arguably be answered “Nothing”, but precisely, modern constitutional monarchs are judged for what they are, not for what they do. According to one author, “Queen Elizabeth has done nothing ungracefully and endured a 203 public life of stultifying boredom in a fashion that has done much service to her country”. 204 This perhaps confirms what the imperialist Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) recommended to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany when asked how to increase his popularity in Britain. Rhodes replied, “You might try doing nothing”. Beyond the person herself, the monarchy represents 205 an acute form of “soft power”. It produces outcomes through attraction rather coercion or payment. Whilst the monarchy is viewed – derided or respected – from New York to Perth, passing through Stoke-on-Trent or York, it has become a commodity and a brand vehicle of 202 Linda Colley, “Today’s royals have perfected the art of revolution”, Financial Times, July 27-28, 2013. For the author, this represents a daunting challenge for Britain’s future, faced with the prospect of three successive male monarchs (Charles, William and George): “Constitutional monarchy is easier to combine with conventional notions of the woman’s sphere than with traditional expectations of masculinity. Royal females are still able – indeed obliged – to look pretty, play the clothes horse, enjoy lavish weddings, be mothers and grandmothers; and they can carry out those philanthropic roles which have become an important part of the monarch’s rationale. Ambitious royal males, however, can no longer hope to direct the British state, lead its armies or take role as governors in the British colonies. As Charles has demonstrated, the lack of a career ladder is particularly cruel for royal males in middle age, and whose progress to the crown is a protracted one. If George stays the course – and if his father reigns for the long period that seems possible – thought will need to be given to jobs for the boys”. The same idea is developed by Jeremy Paxman: the sovereign has lost the “historic male functions of god and governor and general” and retained the more motherly tasks of “giving comfort and nurturing good cause”. See Jeremy Paxman, On Royalty, 203 It is noteworthy that British monarchs devote much of their time and attention to public and charitable service. According to Frank Prochaska, Anglo-American author of the seminal The Republic of Britain (2000), this has taken increasing importance for British monarchs: “George II was the patron of nine organizations, Victoria 250, George V 500, the present Queen seven or eight hundred and the extended royal family 3,500. And that’s how they spend their time”, quoted by Matthew Engel, “Mrs Windsor, anyone?”, Financial Times, June 2-3, 2012. 204 Max Hastings, “Long may she reign – with dignity and endearing dullness”, Financial Times, June 2-3, 2012. 205 Ibidem. 74 Britishness. In short, it fuels national identity and sells Britain abroad. Arguably, Harry Potter, James Bond, the BBC and Burberrys serve a sense a Britishness, but Britishness also depends on our apprehension of the Queen, Charles, Diana, William and Harry According to Harvard professor Joseph Nye, even infant Prince George, born on July 22, 2013, wields “soft power” in the world. Practically speaking, this means that people in the country and across the world 206 value the longevity and perseverance of the monarchy (itself a testament to reinvention). Royal christenings, weddings and funerals (“hatches, matches and dispatches”), not to forget the silver, golden and diamond jubilees of the Queen, punctuate British life. This pattern of these celebrations are part of the fabric of British society and seep into the collective psyche, constructing a particular idea of nationhood that has slowly carved something that could not be produced through individual fiat. They make up the “happiness business” to quote Lord Charteris, a former private secretary to the Queen. Walter Bagehot highlighted the virtues of 207 the monarchy in 1867. For him, it was a resilient system because it is easy to understand and because a royal family guarantees “nice and pretty events” at regular intervals. “A princely marriage”, he wrote, “is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind”. Domestically, the monarchy has the advantage of binding different parts of Britain’s increasingly multicultural society. According to political philosopher John Gray, “The monarchical constitution we have today – a mix of antique survivals and postmodern soap opera – may be absurd, but it enables a diverse society to rub along without too much friction”. The costs and benefits of the monarchy in terms of global politics are also 208 remarkable. For every christening, wedding or funeral in the royal family, there are ever more people across the world discovering the Book of Common Prayer, Britain’s abbeys and royal palaces, the country’s culture and history. This in turn might lead to increased investment in Britain, or, returning to Joseph Nye’s idea of “soft power”, even foster democratic ideals. The monarchy remains immensely popular in Great Britain, the Commonwealth, and abroad. 209 Levels of support for the Crown are as strong among the working class as among the rich (Marxists attributing this to “false consciousness” – a concept whereby members of a subordinate social class fail to grasp the exploitation and domination from which they suffer). Whilst not present in the mainstream, the issue of republicanism exists in the UK and is believed to account for a little less than 20% the entire population. Republican sentiment 210 comes out intermittently, most often when taxpayers question the cost of the monarchy. It 211 206 Joseph Nye, “The infant prince is a source of real-world power”, Financial Times, July 25, 2013. 207 Matthew Engel, “Kate expectations”, Financial Times, April 23-24, 2011. 208 Quoted in Tristam Hunt, “Love and leverage in an age of global royalty”, Financial Times, April 28, 2011. As part of the soap opera, there are figures of fun (the depraved antics of Prince Harry), tragic figures (the fate of Princess Diana, from the moment of her loveless marriage to her sudden death in Paris), and stage villains (the boorish Prince Andrew or the gaffe-prone Duke of Edinburg). At the center of this galaxy, the Queen operates – as in all soap operas – as the enduring matriarch. 209 The absorption with royalty and the media frenzy surrounding the British monarchy is remarkable even in the United States, the world’s first great revolutionary republic. It is noteworthy that the country’s founding fathers expressed deep admiration for both the ruling King and for the monarchy in general. Less than ten years before the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin enthusiastically claimed that of all the monarchs George III was “the very best in the world and the most amiable”. He further added that “there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly Government”. See Geoffrey Wheatcroft, “A revolutionary republic embraces the royals”, Financial Times, April 27, 2011. 210 Andrew Child, “Republicans tilt at UK royal wedding”, Financial Times, April 28, 2011. A CBS/New York Times poll reported in 2011 that the royal family enjoyed an approval rating of 77%. The same poll concluded that 71% of Americans thought the royal family “a good thing”, and only 15% were against it. Cf. Joseph Nye, “The infant prince is a source of real-world power”, Financial Times, July 25, 2013. 211 Understood as the “real” costs or the “social” costs. In terms of “real” costs, the Sovereign Grant for the royal family, i.e. the annual expenditure funded by the taxpayer in support of the Queen’s official duties, amounted to £33.3 million for 2012-13. See the official website of British Monarchy at 75 also emerges as a defensive mechanism, when the country is gripped by royal fever (with, for instance, the nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton in April 2011, watched by 2bn viewers). Fanned by wall-to-wall media coverage of such events, critical campaign groups 212 (akin to Greenpeace or Amnesty International) have found root in the country. One such group, known as “Republic”, calls for the abolition of the British monarchy and the establishment of an elected head of state. “Republic” nevertheless remains largely marginal, 213 perhaps because its exponents confuse the appearance of monarchical power (high) with reality (close to nil). Besides such groups, different organizations confess – sotto voce – their lukewarm enthusiasm for the monarchy. Whilst no political party avowedly espouses republican ideals, the Liberal Democrats once felt akin to those ideals before forming part of the current coalition government, and different media occasionally express their reluctance for the monarchy. The weekly paper, The Economist, has confessed it was “never an eager royalist”. 214 http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/SovereignGrantAnnualReport201213.a spx (visited July 26, 2013). The Queen is known to be one of Britain’s wealthiest women. Her wealth, is principally derived from land (a proportion – 15% - of the net revenue of the Crown Estate) and investments (she is known to invest in blue-chip companies). The Queen also has a considerable number of paintings, racehorses and jewelry. Her entire wealth has been estimated at $450 million. Cf. Alan Cowell, “Questions About Royal Land Test New British Disclosure Law”, New York Times, January 8, 2005. In terms of “social” costs”, we refer to costs of anchoring the entire aristocratic class system in Britain. The sum is doubtless more important but near impossible to assess with accuracy. 212 Republican sentiment flared up at different moments in British history. Besides the aforementioned Cromwell interlude, we mention republican opportunities offered by the dementia of King George III (1760-1820), the licentiousness of King George IV (1820-1830), or the dimwittedness of King William IV (1830-1837). The reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) also gave rise to a brief spat of republican sentiment. The Queen led a secluded life for over ten years after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, from typhoid fever, in 1861. Popular discontent with the protracted mourning of the Queen coincided with the establishment in France of the Third Republic. The republican tide subsided after the Queen resumed public appearances (and most notably a thanksgiving celebration in St. Paul’s cathedral) following the improvement in the health condition of her son, the Prince of Wales, who had also contracted typhoid fever. Finally, republican sentiment came close to boiling point after WWI when demobilized soldiers came back from the front as the Labour Party began its ascent with calls for a socialized constitution. In reaction, King George V and Queen Mary stepped up their public and charitable services. 213 Check the website of Republic at http://www.republic.org.uk/ (visited October 23, 2020). Republic is currently led by Graham Smith (its campaign manager). The group boasts membership of 14,000. Cf. Andrew Child, “Republicans tilt at UK royal wedding”, Financial Times, April 28, 2011. 214 The Economist, April 6, 2002, at p. 84. 76 b). The “Efficient Branch”: Government By the “efficient” branch, Bagehot referred to government, itself comprising parliament, the cabinet, and the civil service. As mentioned in the introduction to these developments, the British long bore an immodest respect for their governmental institutions, with “Westminster” (the name commonly given to the House of Lords and House of Commons combined) viewed as the mother of parliaments. Today, Westminster’s reputation lies in ruins. It is no longer subject to the deference which it long knew. Different reasons explain this state of affairs. For all the claimed independence of MPs, the House of Commons has been enfeebled by rigid party discipline. Today, control lies in the hands of the party whips. Instead of holding the executive to account, parliament has become a rubber stamp for the governing majority. The decision in 2003 to send British troops to Iraq, alongside the Americans, provides of evidence of rigid party discipline. Had MPs listened to their constituents, it is most likely that British troop never would have been sent to Iraq. Despite devolution, local democracy has been largely emasculated, leaving Britain with the most centralized system of government in Europe. This began under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Furthermore, the House of Lords sits half-reformed and largely appointed. Most, but not all of the hereditary peers have gone, only to be replaced by self-selecting political cronies and establishment placemen. The argument for an unelected second chamber is unanswerable. A further reason behind the whittling down of Westminster’s authority, particular to 2009, has to do with a relentless stream of front-page headlines proclaiming the nation’s representatives to be an assembly of thieves... Much public ire was stirred in the spring of 2009 when The Daily Telegraph published detailed accounts of MPs’ expenses claims (known as “chits”). 77 The chits were intended to cover the cost of MPs’ living in London and in their constituencies. It soon became clear, however, that a degree of corruption was involved in this practice. A number of MPs introduced claims to pay for mortgage interest costs, furniture (chandeliers), the employment of gardeners and housekeepers, repairs to tennis courts and swimming pools, to tune a piano and even the dredging of a moat on a country estate. In 215 their defense, MPs argued that their expenses claims were submitted “within the rules”. In addition, they constituted deserved compensation for a relatively modest basic salary. These arguments failed for two basic reasons. First, many resented the fact that the rules to which the MPs claimed to have subjected themselves were written by the very claimants (i.e. the Commons regulating itself). In addition, the entire affair erupted at an inappropriate time, in the midst of Britain’s most severe economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Cupidity and petty expenses would not let do. Perhaps MPs were assuming that frugality was an ancient or outmoded virtue, appropriate to the time of Regulus or Cato but 216 217 no longer applicable in the world of globalized capitalism. They were wrong and the British public voiced their disapproval loud and clear. In the immediate exposure of the expenses scandal, MPs provoked a mutiny against Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons (whose role is to chair the House of Commons and uphold its dignity). Mr. Martin – a former metalworker from Glasgow – fell victim to what could be described as an act of parliamentary regicide, the first Speaker to be deposed since Sir John Trevor in 1695. Officially, Mr. Martin was ousted for failing to protect the 218 House of Commons from the wrath of the masses beyond. He had fought a losing battle to stop details emerging of how MPs had spent taxpayers’ money. Unofficially, he was 219 deposed because of his defense of smug rules. He was a defender of the status quo, a defender of an “expenses culture” that now seemed dated. He came in favor of the ancien régime well beyond the time that others had realized that the game was up for cozy self-regulation. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, summed up the spirit of the day when observing that the Speaker presided over a system “more reminiscent of the gentlemen’s clubs of the 19 th century”. Much hypocrisy lay beneath this affair. Mr. Martin was most certainly the “fall- 220 guy” for a system of expenses and allowances, which was exploited and abused by MPs for many years. 215 The smallness of certain expenses further diminished parliament’s standing. Certain MPs filled in expenses claims for chocolate bars, dog food, and sanitary products. 216 The Roman general and consul Marcus Attilius Regulus (died c. 250 BC) was commander-in-chief of the Roman army against the Carthaginians. He remained on Carthaginian territory to finish the war whilst the other consul, Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, was recalled to Rome. Meanwhile, the ploughman he had left in charge of his estate had run off with the farm equipment. Regulus wrote to the Roman senate requesting permission to go back home and sort things out. He was worried that his wife and children might be suffering hardship. The senate decided to appoint another man to manage the farm and voted that Regulus’s wife and children be supported out of public funds. 217 When Cato the Younger (234 BC-149 BC) returned from duty in Spain, he sold his horse rather than incur the cost, to the state, of shipping it back to Italy. He was generally known for his sober way of living, sharing the food and work of the common soldier. 218 In fact, Mr. Martin resigned as Speaker on 19 May 2009, with his resignation becoming effective 21 June 2009. 219 The expenses scandal began in 2005 when journalists requested full disclosure of expenses claims under the Freedom of Information Act. House of Commons authorities rejected this request and the case went to appeal. In 2007, tribunals overseeing the Freedom of Information Act ordered parliament to provide a more detailed breakdown. Mr. Martin, the Speaker, appealed to the High Court to block publication. In 2008, the High Court ruled against Mr. Martin and preparations were made to publish 1.2m pages of receipts and claims. Soon after, the database of MPs’ expenses was leaked to newspapers with The Daily Telegraph spewing out a stream of revelations in April-May 2009. 220 Financial Times, 20 May 2009. 78 Besides the ousting of the Speaker, three consequences resulted from the expenses scandal. On the political plane, the scandal benefited the smaller – or fringe – parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP ) or the far-right British National party in the European 221 Parliament elections of June 4-7, 2009. With respect to Parliament itself, the decision was taken to cede power over remuneration and conduct to an regulatory commission, which would itself be subject to an independent audit (the problem being that the very independence of such independent commissions erodes the principle that the people are sovereign through parliament). The entire affair highlighted the issue of public scrutiny or accountability with regard to Britain’s antiquated expenses regime. In fundamental terms, the affair sparked a constitutional crisis comparable to that of 1936 when King Edward VIII stepped aside as monarch over his plans to marry a divorcee. 222 Conclusions: To this day there isn’t a written constitution. But there are calls to codify the UK Constitution → element of debate. Post-war angst: in the words of Dean Acheson, “Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role” glorious victory after WW2 → what is the identity of the UK on the world stage with BREXIT? goes deep into the British psyche, UK is going to become a small country. Dynamics of devolution: leading to a federal state or the break-up of the U.K.? This began in 1998… what is it? 221 UKIP advocated for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. 222 One author wryly pointed out, “No one has yet been accused of a crime, but with a dozen careers ended already and projections that 50, 100, even half of all MPSs could ultimately be forced out it is understandable that the word ‘revolution’ is being thrown around” : Christopher Caldwell, “MPs’ expenses : a view from the US”, Financial Times, May 30-31, 2009. 79