The Economist - USA (2019-09-28)

52 TheEconomistSeptember 28th 2019

1

I

tisrarefor the Supreme Court to give a

unanimous judgment on a contentious

appeal. But that is what happened on Sep-

tember 24th when it ruled that Boris John-

son’s prorogation of Parliament for five

weeks until October 14th had been unlaw-

ful. The 11 justices upheld and even

strengthened a Scottish lower-court judg-

ment against the suspension, while over-

turning an English high-court finding that

the issue was political and accordingly not

suitable for judicial determination. In do-

ing this, the court delivered a powerful

blow to the prime minister’s authority.

The blow was the more effective for the

manner of its delivery. In a calm but mellif-

luous voice, the court’s president, Lady

Hale, sporting a glittering spider brooch,

read out a damning judgment against Mr

Johnson. If there were no limit to the gov-

ernment’s ability to prorogue, that would

be incompatible with parliamentary sover-

eignty. She cited a 1611 court ruling that “the

King hath no prerogative, but that which

the law of the land allows him.” She dis-

missed the government’s argument that a

long suspension was needed to prepare a

Queen’s Speech and new legislative agen-

da. She noted that it would limit parlia-

mentary scrutiny. This mattered, she said,

because of the exceptional circumstance

that Brexit is due to happen on October 31st.

Although the Supreme Court did not say

so explicitly, its ruling implied that Mr

Johnson had misled the queen when advis-

ing her in August to prorogue Parliament.

Not surprisingly, the opposition Labour

leader, Jeremy Corbyn, interrupted his

party conference in Brighton to call on the

prime minister to resign. t-shirts with spi-

der motifs quickly popped up on eBay,

where they sold in their thousands. Com-

ing after six successive defeats in the

House of Commons, the passage of an act

designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit, the

resignation of two ministers and the re-

moval of the Tory whip from 21 rebellious

mps, even the ebullient Mr Johnson might

have been expected to feel some embar-

rassment or, just possibly, shame.

Instead he doubled down. He said he

profoundly disagreed with the court’s judg-

ment. He offered no apology for his ac-

tions, even though they had been found

unlawful. Although neither the govern-

ment’s defence nor the court’s judgment

suggested that prorogation was directly

connected to Brexit, he declared ominous-

ly that a lot of people were seeking to frus-

trate it. And he continued to insist that

Britain must leave the euon October 31st,

deal or no deal.

As has happened before, some of his

noisier supporters attacked the judges as

part of an anti-Brexit establishment bent

on thwarting the will of the people. Jacob

Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, re-

portedly spoke of a constitutional coup. A

few Brexiteers suggested that justices

should be subject to political vetting before

appointment. Yet Geoffrey Cox, the attor-

ney-general, declared that, although dis-

agreeing with the judges was acceptable,

impugning their motives was not. Indeed,

the court ruling points to a constitution

that is working, not to one that is broken.

What next? The court declared that, be-

cause the prorogation was unlawful, it had

not happened at all. John Bercow, the

Speaker, duly recalled mps to Westminster

on September 25th. They asked about the

attorney-general’s advice on prorogation,

The government and the law

Along came a spider

The Supreme Court rules that Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was

unlawful, adding to the many obstacles facing his Brexit plans

Britain

53 TheJenniferArcuriaffair

54 Labour’spartyconference

55 Bagehot: After Corbyn

Also in this section