I am, of course, delighted by this morning's Supreme Court decision, as my Twitter feed witnesses. But opinion is divided as YouGov have found:
It would seem that Leave Voters are Tory voters. And now the party of law and order no longer believes in the courts. Which is quite staggering.
Not only do we have a government that will, I am quite sure, argue that the courts cannot rule on its abuse of the Royal prerogative when it is now very clearly the law that it can, but now they will argue that our Supreme Court is wrong.
This is a definition of a divided country: we cannot now agree whether there is a commonality that binds us together as a nation with one law. When that goes the very idea of what a nation is goes with it.
We're in trouble, despite the euphoria of the day, unless we can consign those who oppose the rule of law to the political wilderness.
To put it another way, we are now in the fight against fascism: let's have no doubt about it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well put. Martin Kettle makes some good points here.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/24/supreme-court-judgment-sounds-trumpet-failed-prime-minister
My worry remains that this is now just a battle that has been won and there will be others that could be lost.
The SC battle has been a satisfying one and I do believe it impossible to organise a defence because otherwise we will be saying a prime minister has unlimited power in any circumstance. There has to be a back stop to such a constitution as we have it now or what? Who watches over those who are supposed to watch and play by the rules and don’t? Without SC intervention, there is no safety net against vested self interest like we see with Crispin Odey or the next Mussolini.
Why do we have backers of Boris who stand to make millions of pounds from ructions in the economy because of BREXIT? How can that be allowed to stand? Just that one point?!!!! Without question? Odey is committing a crime against his country – its traitorous to trash the economy to enrich oneself. Surely?
If we do not want judicial involvement then lets have a written constitution.
We must realise however, that HM opposition parties are not working together and that as long as they continue to not work together, they will be asking to be prorogued. That remains my big worry.
They need to work together on the basis that the 2016 refrendumb was not binding on Parliament nor had it been conducted well and is therefore illegitimate. How can we have a select committee still hearing evidence (is it not?) on the 2016 debacle whilst others are pushing the result forward as bona fide democracy at work? In the same building!??
Johnson is going to do a May: he will dig in in his keep for now and defend it come what may.
Absurdity is the new reality it seems to me.
.
“Not only do we have a government that will, I am quite sure, argue that the courts cannot rule on its abuse of the Royal prerogative when it is now very clearly the law that it can”
I think people have the right to question why something was completely obscure at 10AM this morning and by 11AM it was very clear. Despite the metaphysical gymnastics involved in the retrospective creation of blank pieces of paper it’s clear that the Supreme Court have significantly altered the UK constitution here and have placed themselves as the ultimate arbiter of political matters.
I agree with the principle here – 5 weeks could easily be 5 months – but going forward we need more codification of the constitution and far, far more scrutiny and accountability of the judiciary.
I suggest nothing changed
It was simply clarified
SB says:
“… accountability of the judiciary….”
You are with Boris on this then ? Eleven senior judges produce a unanimous decision on the interpretation of the law and you don’t agree with them.
Who would you accept as a higher authority ? God?
Purleeze.
Given the make up of the Supreme Court i am pessimistic about any interventions they may make. If we are to have an interventionist court it must be more diverse in terms of race, class and education and there has to be greater oversight on appointments by a range of public bodies beyond the legal profession.
SB says:
“…. interventionist court it must be more diverse in terms of race, class and education and there has to be greater oversight on appointments by a range of public bodies beyond the legal profession.”
I hear what you are saying and in a sense I agree, but Judges don’t do justice. They interpret law…mostly that’s what they do and unless we change the nature of our legal system we just are not going to go where you suggest.
The next government that takes on the legal profession will be the first.
The mostly Conservative Leave voters who claim to disagreed with the judgement were probably mistaking agreement for approval.
Unwelcome news often causes us to immediately resist it – but I doubt that this yougov probe actually discloses anything more than a brief and fleeting, not-thought-through victor-meldrew-type ‘denial. Give ‘em time. They’re still coming to terms with it.
qwertboi says:
“The mostly Conservative Leave voters who claim to disagreed with the judgement were probably mistaking agreement for approval.”
I’ve been criticised for suggesting Leave supporters are stupid, but that seems to be the tenor of what you are suggesting here. 😮
If your conclusion is that voters were ‘mistaking agreement for approval’ because of dodgey pollsters’ questions then I think it quite likely you have a point.
And I don’t think You Gov should be allowed to have ‘gov’ in their title, but that’s another matter.
Looked at positively it is at least a relief that the Supreme Court has endorsed the decision of the Scottish Court of Session. So on this issue there is only one law to be flouted.
That Tory voters don’t like it is hardly surprising because in that traditional establishment mindset the law is principally about protecting the privileges of ownership. When it comes to laws governing human rights etc the view is much more ambivalent (putting it mildly). Not that Boris Cummings is not even as we speak wondering whether it’s worth appealing the decision before the ECJ or the The European Court of Human Rights. The irony of which would be truly delicious.
The figure of 49% to 30% is ominous. 30% being what Tories are accustomed to thinking of as enough support to constitute a working majority of seats in Parliament under FPTP and entitle them to govern.
I did observe a while back that I think history will judge the referendum on proportional representation to have been more significant than the Brexit referendum.
What will determine where we go next is whether the popular vote of Conservative voters (if the you gov poll figures are about right) is endorsed by the Tory members in Parliament by their supporting the insupportable position of No 10.
It could as you suggest, Richard, be a bit hairy.
The Tories appear to have only championed the rule of law when it suited them, witness their withdrawal of access to legal aid regarding social security some years ago now. There’s nothing new here really. Where else was this going to go?
Very true Bill K. Selective principles, selectively applied. Despite all their “will o’ the people” stuff, theyre no narodniks. Jeremy Corbyn gave us their number, theyre not on the side of the people against the elite – they are the elite.
Narodniki meaning “going to the people” in Russian is exactly what they should be doing as soon as they take the no-deal off the table.
Fascism worries me too Richard but I honestly don’t know where the greater danger lies.
It occurs to me that, if Farage actually wants power rather than just Brexit, then it’s possible that Boris’ crazy posturing around brexit may in some sense be protecting us from fascism by stealing the Brexit Party’s thunder.
Boris is claiming today that the conservatives will have no electoral pact with the Brexit party.
Farage is ranting about Cummings ruining brexit and warning Boris not to bring back TM’s deal.
Yes playing the people vs the elite/parliament/courts card in the way Boris is doing is dangerous and could potentially pave the way to fascism. I get that.
But the anger against the elite is real and Farage (and worse characters) will exploit it regardless what the mainstream parties do. Therefore not playing this particular populist card yourself absolutely does not stop others from doing so.
We’ve seen where May’s brexit compromise in the face of remainer, ERG and DUP opposition got us: the Brexit party coming out of nowhere to poll 30% at the EU elections.
Imagine if no mainstream party took a strongly pro-brexit line going into the next GE and it occurs before Brexit (assuming a further extension)…
Imagine brexit is cancelled completely or a referendum held where no real brexit option is on the ballot paper. I know you remainers are just going to be happy to remain but that doesn’t make the underlying anger that caused Brexit to go away. Maybe it makes it substantially worse and helps focus it?
How would the Brexit Party poll then? Is the risk of fascism higher or lower in those scenarios than what we face now with Boris’ shenanigans?
I really don’t know.
I admire your optimism
Adam Sawyer says:
“….But the anger against the elite is real and Farage (and worse characters) will exploit it …”
But…Farage is representative of the elite… along with Boris Cummings and Rees Mogg and the rest of the shower of pro Brexit Tories.
What is it with English (British , even) that we have such adoration for our toffs ? I don’t quite see how they do it.
FFS, why have we even still got a monarch in the 21st century. AAAArrrrghhh!
All I can say is that anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court should not be involved must be insane.
I’m sorry but there you are.
The courts only get involved when the parties to a contract come into dispute and then – through the Court – we begin to see what the contract really meant as written or in practice (as Richard said, things are clarified – not changed). It is one or other of the protagonists who has to change.
I’ll say it again for those of you who are far too slow on the uptake: the Prime Minister (not president) of this country does not – cannot – have unlimited power and must be subject to some sort of limitation from an external force of some kind. Johnson is not a King.
There does not seem to have been an inbuilt method or force in whatever our constitutional rules are which is why private individuals have got involved and asked a court to adjudicate on the matter and that court has clarified for us. Ideally, this should have been part of our rules of democracy. It wasn’t – only the rule of law – something being ‘justiciable’ could be used.
This must mean in my view that our democracy (our ‘contract’) is not fit for purpose – reification once more of the weakness of our constitution and the need for change.
That limitation was (still is – it has not been changed but reasserted) reasonableness in the face of established prorogation practice over many years. A gentlepersons agreement – nothing more.
Johnson has been found to have abused his position and not been reasonable in his use of prorogation – his use of it has not been consistent with previous use.
I say again – who would have stopped Johnson’s unreasonable behaviour? Someone had to.
Otherwise ‘what’ exactly? A glaring vacuum has been found in our democracy and the SP has filled it in my view and done what a properly drafted constitution should have done.
Those who wish for a ‘decisive supreme leader’ are in my view sheep – nothing more. They should seek out countries that work like that and emigrate – if you’d be so kind.
Anyhow – ground hog day – here we come. And so we start again…………..
All the disagreeing coming mainly from Tory voters and Leave voters certainly makes it clear that the proroguing was NOT about the Queen’s speech, was it? Boris lied.