In contrast, constitutional stipulations that are substantive contradict the provision for constitutional change because they falsely assert that they must be
explicitly accepted by any political participant who seeks to change them democratically The contradiction becomes fully apparent if we recognize that the
argument for permitting substantive constitutional prescriptions also permits an established religion.
The great irony of the history, in my view, is that
accepting Churchill's critique of the appeasement policy of the 1930s was very
explicitly a choice that our interests were inextricably linked with what happened in Europe (there is an
argument, made by Paul Kennedy and others, that this can be said of much English and British history back to 1066) and that this inevitably meant speeding the decline of Empire and global power status.