Hot Brexit News

I spent my student days at Downing College, Cambridge, which was particularly renowned as a lawyer’s college. There I met a young law student from Wales. We were not particularly friends, but we met occasionally for lunch when we both ended up working in London in the 1980s. If I remember right, he was at the time an international shipping specialist. I have not seen him in decades, but was briefly in touch two years ago when I  saw his photo on the cover of my college newsletter. He had just been appointed a justice of the UK’s Supreme Court.

If you are wondering what this preamble has to do with Brexit, he was one of eleven judges who today ruled on two cases related to the prorogation of Parliament by the current government.

The Supreme Court ruled today concerning the lawfulness of the government’s prorogation of Parliament. The maximum number of eleven justices heard  the case. The ruling was unanimous, which is quite remarkable. The ruling was read by justice Lady Hale with admirable clarity and precision. If you were to meet Lady Hale in your local supermarket, she might seem to be anybody’s grandmother, but she has a razor-sharp mind.

My non-lawyer’s understanding of the ruling is as follows:

1.     The court ruled that the prorogation is justiciable. The government had argued that it is not.

2.     The court then ruled that the power of prorogation has limits (a 17^th-century precedent was cited), and that therefore the court had to rule as to whether the limits of the power of prorogation had been exceeded. The government had argued that the court has no power to rule as to the limits of the “prerogative power” of prorogation.

3.     The court distinguished between recess and prorogation. When Parliament is in recess it does not sit for its day-to-day business but Parliamentary business can and does continue. Committees can scrutinize government actions, and other business proceeds as normal. Prorogation is quite different: it stops all Parliamentary business, any laws that have not received Royal Assent lapse. At this time of year Parliament would normally be in recess so that MPs can attend the annual conferences of their parties (Liberal Democrat last week, Labour this week, Conservative next week).

4.     The court further ruled that prorogation is not a procedure in Parliament. This is a rather technical point. In effect it means that prorogation was not simply a normal procedure of Parliament but was, rather, imposed on Parliament by the government.

5.     The court then ruled as to whether the prorogation exceeded legal limits. The government had argued that it needed to prorogue Parliament to prepare for a Queen’s Speech to start a new session of Parliament, and that this was a perfectly normal procedure. The court ruled that the prorogation was clearly excessive: prorogation is normally a matter of four to six days, not five weeks.

6.     The court pointed out that the timing of the prorogation was significant. By 31 October Parliament must decide whether or not our nation embarks on a constitutional change of great significance. The prorogation clearly denied Parliament the time and ability to discuss and scrutinize this important matter. In short, this prorogation, made in exceptional circumstances, was an extreme act with no justification. It had substantial effects on Parliamentary democracy. The government had argued the contrary.

7.     The Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was unlawful. The prorogation is “void and of no effect”. That is to say that Parliament has not been prorogued and can resume sitting when called by the Speaker of the House, not by the government.

8.     The court emphasized that the only justification for prorogation that it had been given by the government was a memo from the Director of Legislative Affairs in 10 Downing Street. This memo did not justify the extent of the prorogation.

There was not a hint of uncertainty or nuance in the judgement. The ruling clearly stated that the Prime Minister unlawfully advised the Queen to prorogue parliament, and in doing so breached the fundamental constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, and the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account.

I cannot tell you what will happen next – except that I expect Parliament to resume sitting promptly. It is clear that the Prime minister has over-reached himself. To be elected as leader of the Conservative Party he promised to leave the EU by 31 October come what may, with no legislative authority to do so. He lost every vote in Parliament during the few days that he allowed it to sit. He tried to prevent Parliament opposing his plans by simply suspending it until it was too late to act. He failed to consider those who might oppose his actions. One opponent is a Scottish National Party MP, Joanna Cherry. She brought a case in the Scottish Court of Session. The other is a business woman, Gina Miller, who brought her case at the UK High Court. She previously challenged Prime Minister May’s plan to deny Parliament a vote as to whether to give notice of the UK’s intention to leave the EU. I am afraid  to say that she should probably have a bodyguard for the near future.