The Queen, Boris Johnson and why MPs must act wisely when Parliament resumes in wake of historic Supreme Court ruling – The Yorkshire Post says

IT is perverse that Boris Johnson has probably never been stronger – or weaker – as Prime Minister after the Supreme Court ruled that the prolonged prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.
A Union flag flying from the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, after judges at the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.A Union flag flying from the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, after judges at the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
A Union flag flying from the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, after judges at the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.

Stronger because it will, potentially, enable him to fight the upcoming election, when it comes, as the populist PM standing up for the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU versus the Establishment elite.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Weaker because never before has a PM been convicted of breaking the law, never mind misleading the Queen, over the suspension of the Houses of Parliament at such a critical time in modern history.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson in New York after judges at the Supreme Court in London ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.Prime Minister Boris Johnson in New York after judges at the Supreme Court in London ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson in New York after judges at the Supreme Court in London ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.

The only certainty is that Mr Johnson, who campaigned for Britain “to take back control” of sovereignty from Brussels, has now – less than two months after succeeding Theresa May – lost all control of Parliamentary and political events.

Can an unelected premier – routinely called a ‘liar’ before this judgment – now look the Queen in the eye, apologise and command sufficient trust, after the highest court in the land condemned his prorogation and dealings with Her Majesty?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad
The Speaker, John Bercow, says Parliament will reconvene at 11.30am on Wednesday.The Speaker, John Bercow, says Parliament will reconvene at 11.30am on Wednesday.
The Speaker, John Bercow, says Parliament will reconvene at 11.30am on Wednesday.

For now, this will be the first decision to confront Ministers and MPs when they reconvene – to use the correct legal terminology in light of this historic ruling – at 11.30am when the Government will presumably set out its intentions while the Opposition consider tabling a no confidence motion.

Yet, given how MPs have previously thwarted, on two previous occasions, Mr Johnson’s attempt to call an early election, it is impossible to say how these events will play out as diehard Brexiteers, and the more ardent Remainers, seek superiority and tactical advantage at every juncture.

After all, a successful ‘no confidence’ vote would probably lead to the dissolution of Parliament, and an early election, at a time that could increase the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit on October 31 – the very eventuality that the Prime Minister’s opponents want to avoid at all costs.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

And this is where the decision of Baroness Hale, a plain-speaking Yorkshirewoman, and her fellow justices, to stand up for the fundamental principles of British democracy, namely the scrutiny of the Government, will clash with the so-called ‘court of public opinion’.

Though the court’s decision was unanimous, unambiguous and unqualified, it leaves Parliament – and Britain – no nearer to resolving the Brexit crisis and healing the deep divisions felt across all sections of society.

The argument is this. Most MPs backed the decision to hold a referendum in 2016. Most said they accepted the result. And most were elected in 2017 on manifestos committed to implementing Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. However the counter-argument is also compelling – namely MPs would be failing in their democratic duty if they did not hold the PM to account over a policy which will have profound consequences for the economy.

And after the Supreme Court put its reputation on the line with a decision which, significantly, also sets a precedent for all future governments to observe, it is for the Houses of Parliament to decide how best to respond and reassert its authority after Mr Johnson said that he profoundly disagreed with the ruling.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Effectively the Supreme Court said it was wrong to suspend Parliament for five weeks at such a crucial juncture – and that Ministers were being injudicious with their claims that the extension only equated to five days or so because of the length of time it takes to prepare the Palace of Westminster for a state opening. As such, the public – the people who matter most of all – will now be expecting politicians on all sides to use the resumed session of Parliament wisely before Britain’s reputation as a beacon of democracy is tarnished still further.