Power to the People

Power to the People

In a landmark judgement and a unanimous ruling of 11 top Judges of the Supreme Court of United Kingdom declared:  "Parliament is free to return to sit at Westminster because the Prime Minster's advice to the Queen was invalid."

"Parliament has not been prorogued, "said Lady Hale,President of the Supreme Court this morning 24 September 2019, in her sum up of the ruling.

                                             

From the House of Lords,Speaker Lord Fowler said:"Peers would get back to work at the earliest opportunity." 

From the House of Commons,Speaker John Bercow said:" There would be be full scope for urgent questions,ministerial statements and emergency debates from tomorrow." 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the United Nations General Assembly session in New York  today, we are told, will fly back to London for 25 September - Wednesday's Prime Ministers' Questions. 

Prorogation of Parliament

King James I of England and VI of Scotland summoned some MP's, to "ask them some questions" in January 1611 was angered by the MP's who used the opportunity to freely criticise his Scottish favourities, prorogued Parliament despite protests.

Ever since, prorogation was recognised as the use of the "royal power" to produce a temporary suspension of Parliament. 

Prorogation simply means the end of one session and clears the way for the start of another. With a new Queen's Speech and a new programme of legislation, this act is one of the few remaining powers exercised by H.M The Queen, on the advice of her Prime Minister.

This power of the Queen has survived really from the Middle Ages without being significantly altered by Statute. 

What does the judgement mean for all intents and purposes?

To summarise the reason for the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, we have to look at the circumstances which led to this Court decision. 

On 28 August 2019 Boris Johnson declared he had asked Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament from between 9-12 September 2019 until the opening of a new session on 14 October 2019.

We really don't know, or even guess, why he wanted such a long time which was customarily much less.

The arguments put forward to the Supreme Court was this act had "the effect of frustration or preventing the ability of Parliament" to carry out its "constitutional functions" without reasonable justification. 

The Court stated this "an improper purpose for prorogation". Johnson's act was thus unlawful, much more than just declared unlawful. 

But, although not stated, the remedy was that it was not a criminal offence, but a "breach of public law" - the law which regulated "what government can and cannot do".

The Court, however, "made no reference to the resignation of the Prime Minister " in its determination. 

The Court also sidestepped the specifics "about motives" which was adduced regarding prorogation, but focused instead, on its effects. 

Why? Because the learned Judges did not find against the Prime Minister on this specific issue. Perhaps, it was a legal wrangle, a minefield, which they did not want to get themselves engaged, or was it ?

Coming more to the point of issue,we may adduce as follows:

Does this judgement make an early election more likely? 

With a minority government it is not in the Prime Minister's gift to call a General Election thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Acts 2011. A two-thirds majority is required. 

Besides, according to political observers, polls, call it what you may, a significant number of MP's are "wary" of voting for an election, in case the Prime Minister wins and overturns the legislation they passed to try to stop a "no deal Brexit". 

What then does this mean for Brexit?

For those of us, including myself who have lived in Britain for over half a century, what it means is "Britain at it's best?" It is not conjecture or comedy?

The chance of a "no deal Brexit," perhaps, is still on the cards, particularly,if the European Union was to refuse to grant a further extension after Haloween or the 31st October 2109?

Would the Europeans ever surrender?  Would Rule Britannia never rule the waves?

Your guess is as good as mine?

What then does this Supreme Court ruling mean for us mortals?

Today's ruling by the "Highest Court in the Land,"has mighty implications, similar in my opinion, to what King James I of England and his successors in title, have come to realise, "the sanctity  of the power of the people."

I can never never profess to be a "legal mind," but my mind boggles at the very thought of a precedent in legal history.

Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, may well be retiring soon, perhaps, to a quiet chalet, but what she pronounced may well go down in history.                                         

R (Miller v The Prime Minister: Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC41 may be cited by legal wizards around the world. 

This judgement will be read for decades,for it's simplicity, yet far reaching consequences, not just in the United Kingdom. 

The ripple effect of this judgement will be felt in other Westminster style and particularly Commonwealth systems, around the globe for years to come. 

The relationship between law and politics, is no doubt summarised in this verdict.

The People and not Parliament is the Supreme Authority in Sri Lanka, thanks to our written Constitution.

Victor Cherubim