{"id":4509,"date":"2019-09-25T16:03:30","date_gmt":"2019-09-25T15:03:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/?p=4509"},"modified":"2021-06-15T17:05:35","modified_gmt":"2021-06-15T16:05:35","slug":"constitutional-coup-crisis-or-clarity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/constitutional-coup-crisis-or-clarity\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional coup, crisis or clarity?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dr Paul Anderson analyses the constitutional impact of the UK Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation of Parliament.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The UK Supreme Court\u2019s (UKSC) forceful rebuke of Prime Minister Boris Johnson\u2019s decision to prorogue Parliament is nothing short of extraordinary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly, the ruling has provoked different reactions\nfrom different political quarters. The Prime Minister himself, while stating\nthat he respected the importance of the independence of the judiciary, posited\nthat he \u2018strongly\ndisagrees\u2019<\/a> with the ruling. Other MPs, many of whom backed Johnson as\nleader, concurred while the incumbent leader of the House of Commons, Jacob\nRees Mogg went one step further, reportedly describing the decision as nothing\nshort of a \u2018constitutional\ncoup\u2019<\/a>. On the opposition side, jubilation. The leaders of all main parties\nhave called on Boris Johnson to resign, and on their return to the Commons\ntoday, will continue to call for him to consider his position.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constitutional Coup<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The language reportedly used by Jacob Rees Mogg is\nunsurprising but alarming. The crushing defeat at the hands of the UKSC is an\nindisputable embarrassment for the government, but attacks on the independent\njudiciary set a dangerous precedent and threaten to undermine trust and\nconfidence in the UK\u2019s independent courts, a cornerstone of the rule of law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the contrary, Rees Mogg et al<\/em> feel vindicated in bemoaning what they consider the over-extension\nof the UKSC into political matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditionally, courts in the UK have sought to stay out of politics, but under certain circumstances \u2013 as the debate on Brexit has proven (twice!) some form of intervention is necessary. In true Rees Mogg fashion, the Leader of the House has reached for the hyperbole. This, however, is not a constitutional or juridical coup and judges are not \u2018Enemies of the People\u2019<\/a>. It is quite simply the bold reassertion of the old doctrine of \u2018separation of powers\u2019 and the fundamental principle of British democracy: parliamentary sovereignty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constitutional Crisis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UKSC\u2019s ruling is a clear devastating ruling for Boris\nJohnson and his government. The eleven justices of the Court ruled unanimously\nthat prorogation was unlawful, designed \u2013 contrary to the line of argumentation\npeddled by the Prime Minister and his lawyers \u2013 to prevent parliament from\ndoing its job. Not only this, but in unlawfully advising the Queen, the PM has\nembarrassed the monarchy bringing it and its role in government to centre stage\nof British politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defeat at the UKSC is an evident blow to the government,\nnot least because while government lawyers understood prorogation under these\ncircumstances to be politically controversial, they were convinced it was\nlegally watertight. This, as the UKSC\u2019s ruling shows, was not the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Far from being a constitutional crisis, the UKSC has simply\nfulfilled its role as the defender of the Constitution. What we are observing\nis not so much a constitutional crisis but a government in tatters. In only a\nmatter of months, Boris Johnson has lost six consecutive votes in Parliament,\nhis parliamentary majority, his brother from government, his plans for a\ngeneral election and has now been found to have acted unlawfully in the\nsuspension of Parliament. In such a short space of time he has already filled\nthe pages of yet to be written history books!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constitutional\nClarity <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Established in 2009 to replace the Law Lords as the UK\u2019s\nmost senior judicial body, the UKSC has tended to stay clear of involvement in\npolitical controversy. Since 2017, however, the judges of the Court have found\nthemselves centre stage in debate on EU withdrawal. In the latest judgement,\nLady Hale insisted the ruling was a \u2018one off\u2019, but it will undoubtedly have\nwider implications that will reverberate down the timeline of British history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Flexing its constitutional muscle and in defence of\nparliamentary democracy, the Court\u2019s judgement reemphasised that the Prime\nMinister \u2013 whether he likes it or not \u2013 is accountable to Parliament. In\naddition, it acknowledged that, contrary to some opinion, the UK does possess a\nConstitution (note the capital C). As paragraph 39 of the judgment states,\n\u2018although the United Kingdom does not possess a single document entitled \u201cthe\nConstitution\u201d, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the\ncourse of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court\u2019s judgement was indisputably the biggest ruling for the UKSC in its ten year history, and the Court seems finally to have embraced its role as a constitutional court, empowered, when necessary, to be a check on government. <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Where next?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the alarming rhetoric being bandied around in the\naftermath of the UKSC\u2019s ruling, the judgement was not about the merits of\nBrexit. The constitutional ramifications of EU withdrawal have been laid bare\nsince the vote back in 2016, strongly spotlighted by the ongoing push by the\nScottish Government for a second referendum and talk of a border poll on\nreunification in Northern Ireland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Talk of the necessity of a written constitution has\nincreased, the role of unelected advisers in Downing Street questioned, not to\nmention discussion on the place in government for a hereditary monarch in the\ntwenty first century. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Constitutional implications of the UKSC\u2019s ruling, including the role of the judiciary in the UK and the relationship between the Monarch and Parliament, will be teased out and examined in the months and years to come. It may well be, as Professor Vernon Bogdanor \u2013 the renowned expert on British constitutional matters has posited, that Brexit will become a defining  \u2018constitutional moment\u2019<\/a> for the UK. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr Paul Anderson is a lecturer in <\/em><\/strong>Politics and International Relations<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr Paul Anderson analyses the constitutional impact of the UK Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation of Parliament.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"featured_media":4522,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,3902],"tags":[54,3022,3030],"class_list":["post-4509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","category-research","tag-brexit","tag-constitution","tag-uk-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"authorName":"Jeanette Earl","featuredImage":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/437\/2019\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.jpg","postExcerpt":"Dr Paul Anderson analyses the constitutional impact of the UK Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation of Parliament.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/242"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4509"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7729,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions\/7729"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/expertcomment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}