Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrives at the United Nations headquarters in New York where he is attending the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly.
The
United Kingdom’s Supreme Court is less than ten years old. But its dismissal of
a prime minister’s attempt to side-line Parliament when the United Kingdom is
facing its most critical peacetime decision for seventy years shows it has
already come of age.
The
court’s ruling on September 24 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s request to
the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was “unlawful” means Parliament
will now reassemble to continue its seemingly endless debate on Britain’s
planned exit from the European Union. However, it does not resolve any of the
underlying issues confronting the Government—and, indeed the UK—over Brexit.
There
is no precedent for what has just happened, which, in effect, adds a new clause
to Britain’s unwritten constitution.
Once
upon a time, say a year or two ago, if a prime minister was found to have
advised the monarch to break the law, it likely would have led to that prime
minister resigning. This is in practice what Johnson did since the technical
decision to prorogue—or end—a session of Parliament is a decision that only the
monarch can take, albeit a decision that she takes on her prime minister’s
advice.
But
Britain is no longer living in the fairy story of a New Elizabethan Age, the
phrase used when Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne sixty-seven years ago,
but in a latter-day political horror story, played out against the fading and
decrepit Gothic grandeur of the Houses of Parliament.
It
has a government that cannot command a majority in the all-important House of
Commons and an opposition that can cooperate sufficiently to prevent the prime minister
taking Britain out of the European Union without an agreement but which cannot
agree on what should be done with the prime minister, or what policy should be
adopted with regard to Britain’s EU membership.
What
will happen is that Parliament will reassemble on September 25, with MPs
looking to see what the Government plans to do next—and to try to assess just
what the public makes of it all.
It
is probable that the Government will keep Parliament in session for at least a
few weeks, during which it will face further scrutiny of its Brexit plans,
notably its more recent statements—disputed by EU officials—that it is making
progress in striking a revised deal to leave the EU on its promised date,
October 31. A couple of weeks of activity may also ensure the resurrection of at
least one piece of non-Brexit legislation that was cast aside with the initial,
and now illegal, prorogation: a bill to give greater protection to prevent
domestic abuse and protect its victims.
On
Brexit, the Government will come under parliamentary pressure to disclose its
plans for a Brexit deal, which it would be expected to present to the European
Union’s leaders when they hold their next European Council meeting on October
17 and 18. Under a remarkable law drafted by the opposition and opposed by the
Government, if no deal has been reached by October 19, the prime minister has
to formally request an extension to the October 31 deadline to ensure the UK
does not quit the EU without an agreement. There will also be challenges to
Johnson’s continued tenure of the premiership, but divisions in the opposition,
not least within the Labour Party, make it uncertain whether a formal no confidence
motion will actually be tabled, or, if one is held, whether Johnson would
actually be defeated.
And
all the time MPs will be looking to see whether Boris Johnson will dare to call
a general election before that date, or whether he really will focus on trying
to get a deal with the EU and then calling an election as soon as possible
afterwards.
Underlying
all this will be uncertainty concerning public opinion. This now seems to be
almost entirely focused on Brexit, so there’s an expectation that Brexiteers
will generally condemn the Supreme Court ruling whilst Remainers—or those who favor
a second referendum—will support it.
The
Court had to consider an extraordinary issue and it appears that their
unanimous ruling was correct in law, that they did not act in a political
fashion, and that their judgement stemmed simply from the fact that Johnson
broke one unwritten convention too many when he called for a five-week
prorogation before the new parliamentary session would be called, instead of a
more normal gap of a few days or a week or two.
But
that probably misses the point. To those who want Britain to leave the EU—and
particularly to those who think it doesn’t matter whether Britain leaves with
or without a deal—the court’s action puts their objective in jeopardy and will
likely serve to strengthen their support for the prime minister.
How
this will play out is anyone’s guess. But the last few weeks have seen
positions harden. Britain’s third and fourth parties, the Scottish Nationalists
and the Liberal Democrats, openly espouse staying in the European Union. The
biggest opposition party, Labour, has adopted an official policy of seeking a
negotiated agreement to leave, putting this to a referendum with “Remain” on
the ballot, and only then deciding whether or not to opt for its own deal or
for Remain.
This
somewhat peculiar wait-and-see policy is bitterly at odds with much of the
party’s membership and grass roots activists, who briefly thought they had
actually won a vote at the Labour Party conference on September 23 to support “Remain,”
only to have what seemed to be an initial decision in their favor overruled by
the chair in what appears to be a classic stitch-up by the party leadership.
But
at some point, probably in late November or early December, a general election
will finally be held. Judging by the admittedly fluctuating opinion polls, once
again there will likely be no overall majority. So who knows now what will be
the fate of either Brexit, or Boris Johnson?
John M. Roberts is a UK-based senior fellow
in the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and Global Energy Center.
Further reading
Sun, Sep 22, 2019
Just two years after Scots narrowly rejected independence by referendum, a second bite at the apple―IndyRef2―is being widely discussed, and one recent opinion pollshows it leading to a pro-independence result.
Long Take
by
Andrew R. Marshall
Wed, Sep 4, 2019
Arguing that the bill would mean he would lose all leverage with Brussels over a new withdrawal agreement, Johnson said “there is only one way forward for the country…there must now be an election.”
New Atlanticist
by
David A. Wemer
Fri, Aug 30, 2019
Johnson—’minister for the Union’, as he has styled himself—now only represents one element of the United Kingdom, albeit the largest. When he addresses the House of Commons on Hastings’ Day, he will truly ‘Speak for England,’ and England alone.
New Atlanticist
by
John M. Roberts
The Supreme Court succeeded in making a unanimous ruling correct in law and seemingly devoid of political influence, but it could only strengthen the prime minister's support among Brexit voters.
| 
