United Kingdom and Gibraltar European Union membership referendum
all articles
The judges needed a day more time to think, now they have spoken right. Their judgment is of historical proportions. It was not only intended to settle the power struggle between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Parliament, but to clarify how power is distributed throughout the kingdom between the government, parliament, courts and the Queen. The verdict, which the President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, recounted, could not have been clearer. (Follow all current developments here)
What is the verdict?
The Supreme Court had to judge on two different issues:
- First, is the dispute over the parliamentary break justiciable - that is, a case for a court? Yes, the eleven judges on the Supreme Court ruled unanimously. The London High Court had previously ruled that Johnson's actions were purely political and therefore not a matter for the court. The Scottish Supreme Court had decided otherwise and declared the break in parliament illegal. Because of the different judgments, the Supreme Court had to clarify this question first.
- Second, did Johnson act lawfully? Again, the eleven judges ruled unanimously: The compulsory break of the parliament was not right. And they go even further: the prorogation is invalid altogether, so the parliament is not on leave. "Zero and of no effect," Hale said, so Johnson's plan was null and void.
In the reason Lady Hale read that the compulsory break was not "normal" in its form, it would prevent Parliament from fulfilling its duties in five out of eight weeks until the Brexit date. Normal is about a break of four to six days.
Johnson's advice to the Queen to dismiss the prorogation was not lawful because it had the effect of hindering Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional duties. "The parliament was not suspended, that's the unanimous opinion of the court," said the chief judge.
In the video: The announcement of the Supreme Court ruling
REUTERS
The government had argued in its defense that prorogation was a normal procedure for ending a session; with the speech of the Queen should begin on 14 October a new one.
The government had argued in its defense that prorogation was a normal procedure for ending a session; with the speech of the Queen should begin on 14 October a new one.
The Scottish Supreme Court, on the other hand, had come to the verdict in the previous trial that Johnson deliberately set the parliament break at five weeks in order to be able to go through his Brexit course without opposition from parliamentarians. He had deceived the Queen about his true intentions for the parliament break to obtain their consent for the break.
The judges now ruled in the interests of the plaintiff against Johnson. On the one hand, activist Gina Miller, who had lamented with prominent supporters such as former Tory Prime Minister John Major in London. On the other hand, 79 parliamentarians in Scotland under the leadership of SNP deputy Joanna Cherry had sued.
What are the consequences of the verdict?
For Boris Johnson , the verdict is a disaster:
- His plan failed to put Parliament on hold until just before the Brexit date of October 31st, thus excluding further intervention against its hard course. The majority of parliamentarians oppose Johnson's approval of leaving the European Union if necessary without an agreement with Brussels.
- Johnson is also discredited by the verdict - even if Hale said explicitly that Johnson's motives did not matter at this point. The government can not appeal the verdict.
The British Parliament emerges victorious in the process - it can now meet again. Judge Hale said it would now be up to the Speaker of the House, John Bercow, to decide on the upcoming steps. Bercow said after the verdict, the Parliament should meet again on Wednesday at 11.30 clock.
The Parliament thus theoretically has enough time to put forward a vote of no confidence and, if there is sufficient approval for another MP Johnson, to withdraw the affairs of state. A bipartisan majority could arise from the willingness of many MPs to want to prevent a hard Brexit. In this respect, the judgment creates new opportunities.
The Queen can also breathe deeply and enjoy the holiday at her castle Balmoral in Scotland. While Johnson's lawyer in recent days did not rule out that the prime minister could just ask for a new prorogation with the queen in case of doubt about a verdict against the compulsory break, this scenario is likely to become less likely.
What are the reactions?
Even before the verdict was voiced that Johnson should resign in case of defeat in court as prime minister. Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said Johnson was "untenable" if he had deceived the queen. That this is so true, now judged by the court. All opposition parties also demanded Johnson's resignation:
Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn commented on the verdict at the current Labor Party Congress and recommended that Johnson "reconsider his position and become the shortest reigning Prime Minister of all time." One should eliminate the possibility of no-deal, hold new elections and elect a government that respects democracy, he recommended his party colleagues.
Joanna Cherry of the Scottish SNP and lead plaintiff against the parliamentary break in Scotland, said: "Boris Johnson's position is untenable and he should now have enough cut to resign."
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson said: "The court has judged what we all already knew: Boris Johnson has proven that he is inappropriate as Prime Minister."
more on the subject