I spent a lot of time discussing Day One of the Supreme Court hearing on the Royal Prerogative last night: the Murphy household knows how to have a good time. It so happens that the FT summarises the conclusion reached quite well this morning:
The government's case did not seem impressive. In essence, it contended that because there had been no law passed by parliament which prevented the exercise of the royal prerogative in respect of Article 50 then the prerogative was available.
The government was arguing, in effect, from the sound of silence.
This is a weak case. From my point of view the big weakness is that the AV referendum Act did in 2011 say that it intended that the outcome of that vote be binding: in that case the government clearly knew how to draft legislation with that intention. Silence in the EU referendum case must have been deliberate then and nothing can be read into it. What is was meant to be, in other words. As a matter of fact reading in is legally wrong in this case then, in my opinion, based on recent precedent.
But it is also wrong for more reasons than that. Whilst I am well aware that determining the will of parliament is not always easy, in this case the claims made by the government are extraordinary. Normally reading in is required to interpret how a power will be used or interpreted. That is inevitably necessary and reasonable: words cannot predict all circumstances to which a law might apply. But here something much more sinister is being claimed: the government case is that silence on an issue gives it the power to act. I do not believe that. And I think it dangerous to presume that is true. The logic is that in the absence of legislation the Royal Prerogative prevails and the law is what the prime minister of the day thinks it should be. As a jurisprudential argument that is not just weak, it is decidedly dangerous, removing as it does all the checks and balances that are meant to be in our system, odd as it is.
And it lays the foundations for dictatorship.
The government made its case yesterday. For the sake of the country, our democracy, liberty and safety it needs to be rejected, resoundingly.
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:
I watched the proceedings too. The opening statements on behalf of the Government were arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
It seems to me that the Government seems to think it can import the American 5th Amendment into our ‘unwritten’ constitution. Lovely.
I always interpreted the Royal Prerogative as being at the disposal of Parliament – not any one party or Prime Minister. That is basically how our democracy works.
I agree whole heartedly with your blog. But I say again, these Tories are out of control.
It seems to me that the Government seems to think it can import the American 5th Amendment into our ‘unwritten’ constitution..
But they can, and they have. Read this and prepare to be staggered.
Given what we know of May’s highly controlling and autocratic style and that this seems to gel well with her senior civil servant, Heywood, I don’t think we should be surprised by this, Richard. But as you say, this is a threat to what little we have left of parliamentary democracy, and when combined with the fascist tendencies of media like the Daily Mail could well end up leading us to a populist dictatorship that the likes of Farage and co seem to favour.
I have no doubt this is what May wants
The whole business of a royal prerogative is a steaming pile of ordure in any case. Time for a written constitution.
The Americans have a written constitution and look what they’ve done with it!!
If ours is to be written then it needs to be better than that.