In concluding his statement, he explicitly raised the possibility of a Bill of Rights and a written constitution.

Wow. It’s taken more than 200 years, but a British prime minister has accepted that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and Washington were right.

Now, I agree that there are some superficially plausible arguments for an Americanisation of the British system of government. Under Brown’s predecessor, there is no doubt that the power of the executive relative to Parliament grew intolerably and was systematically abused by the prime minister and his cronies. However, there are more compelling arguments against the creation of a United States of Britain.

The most important of these is that, whatever it says on paper, in practice the US Constitution gives the executive branch even more power than is currently enjoyed by the British executive. Did Congress restrain Bush from declaring war on Iraq? Of course not. Did congressional hearings prevent Bush from making a succession of disastrous appointments to high office, notably to the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Did it improve American foreign policy to publish a National Security Strategy? On the contrary. And how about that Bill of Rights? Did it stop the administration from treating habeas corpus as an optional extra when it comes to terrorist suspects? I don’t think so.

Brown really is a reclusive, scholarly type who derives his knowledge of constitutional matters exclusively from the academic tomes that line his study. Maybe he is blissfully unaware of the rise of the imperial presidency in the US.

... contd.