12. Who chose the British Constitution?
What can we conclude from the preceding chapters? The existence of a “constitution” is not certain but contentious. There is a good case to be made for it not existing. At the very least, it is not democratic and does not correspond to the needs of a modern country: it does not empower the people as sovereign or recognise their rights.
An elite of interested parties perpetuates the notion of a constitution because it serves its purposes. It maintains a hierarchical power structure; keeps power away from the people; creates all sorts of job titles, some of them absurdly antiquated; and enables a clique of experts to exercise a monopoly on interpretation of the rules. The British people are the victims of an elaborate ongoing hoax that tells them they have a constitution that makes them sovereign.
We can usefully ask why Britain should have such a half baked, chaotic, iniquitous system of government? When, why and how did the, unfair, inefficient, totalitarian idea of the “crown-in-parliament” originate?
The root of the problem is to be found in the 17th century. The period of the regicide, interregnum and restoration is usually treated as ancient history with no bearing on the present. Historians of the constitutions recognise the significance of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 but prefer to emphasise the reform movement of the 19th century when extolling the virtues of the contemporary parliamentary democracy.
However, to truly understand why Britain opted not to have a constitution, we need to place the Glorious Revolution in its context. We need to see it as not so much a historical event as a political one that determines how things are today.
The Cavalier Constitution 