In the latest Brexit drama, the Scottish appeals court has ruled unanimously that UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation (i.e., suspension) of parliament until October 14 is unlawful. Courts in England, however, have rejected a similar challenge, saying that prorogation is a political matter over which they have no say. The courts in Northern Ireland are considering a similar case. So the situation is murky to say the least and it is not clear what comes next.
The starkly divergent conclusions of the English and Scottish courts are due to be resolved in a series of supreme court hearings next week. Northern Ireland’s judges are due to deliver their decision on a similar application on Thursday morning.
Johnson’s government has said that they would not be bound by the decision of the Scottish court (which has put further strain on England-Scotland relations) and would only bring back parliament if the Supreme Court ordered them to.
Meanwhile, the colorful Speaker of the UK parliament John Bercow has said that he would leave parliament on October 31 or before the next election, whichever comes first. He was first elected to parliament in 1997 as a Conservative MP and this article charts the evolution of his views leftward over time.
At university he was a member of the far-right Conservative pressure group the Monday Club and secretary of its immigration and repatriation committee. He had left the group by the age of 20 and has since described his views at the time as “boneheaded”. (He later led calls for Tory MPs to be banned from being members of the group.)
…Around the early 2000s, Bercow’s politics began to become more socially liberal. In 2002 he married his wife Sally Illman, a Labour supporter, who stood to be a Labour councillor in Westminster in 2010. The same year as his marriage, Bercow resigned from the front bench after rebelling to vote for Labour plans to allow unmarried gay and heterosexual couples to adopt children. He told his constituency association in his new year’s message that year that voters saw the Tories as “racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-youth”.
Here are some tributes that were made to him following the announcement of his decision to retire.
His way of speaking and sense of humor has brought him a worldwide audience and endeared him to many (including me) who enjoyed the way he issued his rulings at a time when parliament was particularly rambunctious over Brexit and where many of the usual norms and processes fell by the wayside.
Johnson’s government has said that they would not be bound by the decision of the Scottish court (which has put further strain on England-Scotland relations) and would only bring back parliament if the Supreme Court ordered them to.
I believe they are within their rights to do this. The English courts have already ruled the prorogation was lawful, after all. I’ll be amazed if the Supreme Court does not rule the same way.
I was very surprised that the Scottish Supreme Court found that the prorogation was unlawful though. The prorogation may be underhanded, reprehensible even, but I didn’t know its legal status was in question.
Why is prorogation still around anyway? It’s an anachronism that doesn’t serve any useful purpose other than to be sprung at times the government needs to escape scrutiny… ah, I see.
Ex-Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption says the proper response to the prorogation is to change the law.
I have no doubt that politically this was a disgraceful thing to do and what tends to happen is that you change the law in response to a sufficiently appalling example of abuse.
“The English courts have already ruled the prorogation was lawful, after all. I’ll be amazed if the Supreme Court does not rule the same way.”
Not necessarily true -- the English court merely followed England (and Wales) legal precedent and elected to not make any judgement on what was deemed to be a political matter. This is not the same as declaring it lawful -- it is merely declining to assess its legality. By not declaring it ‘unlawful’ the UK parliament could then proceed to prorogue while the Scottish court moved forward with its review. They -- right or wrong -- are certain that it is unlawful. So we have a ‘nno my business guv’ versus a finding of unlawfulness.
However, what has come out in the Scottish review is that the reason for the prorogation is what has made it unlawful -- the court is of the opinion that the executive was trying to prevent parliament from undertaking its constitutional duties. The failure of the executive to provide any statement from senior civil servant or a minister on the reasons for prorogation was considered to be highly relevant.
The (UK) Supreme Court will indeed need to balance the facts revealed in the Scottish courts with the English court’s view that a “political” matter is not something on which the courts can comment. It is in no way a foregone conclusion that the UK supreme court will follow the English court but, either way, the finding remains -- the present executive lied to the Monarch. This will remain whichever way the Supreme Court goes -- if it follow English precedent, then it will not remove the finding as it will (again) choose to not make a decision; however, if it supports the Scottish position, then it is accepting the core point -- it’s unlawful due to the lying.
Our PM may well find himself on the receiving end of a criminal case in the Scottish Courts!
That the Constitution needs to be (re)written and better structured is a given as the Prime Minister essentially holds the powers of a medieval monarch without any reasonable checks and balances that exist in a more rational jurisdiction.
Ross
Now that it is a legal fact that Johnson lied about his reasons for prorogation, there is the rather uncomfortable legal fact that this means he lied to the monarch when he “advised” her.
The Queen having made that decision on his advice can’t be reviewed or countermanded: that goes with the prerogative of the job. But the Queen is rather keen to keep out of and well above politics, and yet this becoming a political pawn is exactly what she’s been dragged into by her liar of a Prime Minister.
She won’t, but I hope she sacks him for that gross impertinence.