Supreme Court defeat for Boris Johnson "risks playing into PM's populist gameplan", says Yorkshire academic

A panel of 11 justices at the Supreme Court in London gave their decision today in a ruling on the legality of the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament until October 14.

The judges, led by the court's Yorkshire-born president Lady Hale, heard appeals over three days arising out of legal challenges in England and Scotland - which produced different outcomes.

The panel held unanimously that Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating Parliament.

Professor Matthew Flinders from the University of Sheffield's Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, said: "The Supreme Court has ruled that the process by which prime minister prorogued parliament for five weeks in the run up to Brexit was unlawful. But the result is unlikely to matter.

"This decision is certain to spark the political equivalent of a volcanic eruption with claims and counter-claims of judicial activism and political incompetence.

"But what no one seems to have considered is that Boris is an explicitly populist politician. In this context a Supreme Court defeat risks simply playing into Johnson's gameplan. It will not stop Brexit. But for Johnson and, especially for his shady apparatchiks, it will be yet another example of "them" (the elite, the experts, the untouchables that wield power without responsibilty) against "us" (the Great British public).

"Boris is not a man to play by the rules and the perils of populism appear far too tempting. This is reflected in his refusal to rule out simply suspending parliament again. Pandering to populism is exactly why a judicial loss today risks boosting Boris."

Professor Angie Hobbs, Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, said: "The Supreme Court is absolutely right to have found against the government.

The unusual length and timing of the prorogation very strongly indicated that the motivation behind it was not to prepare for a Queen’s Speech – but to prevent sovereign Parliament scrutinising the actions of the executive government during a crucial period in our national life. If that was the motivation, then the government lied to the Queen about the reasons for the prorogation.

"I have been deeply disturbed to see some sections of the media urging the government – who in truth probably require little encouragement – to disregard the rule of law and plough on with its plans regardless.

"The claim that a certain individual – usually a male – represents ‘the will of the people’, and that he should silence or disregard any institutions or laws which stand in his way, are the claims of autocrats throughout history.

"The many and varied people who make up a nation do not have a single homogeneous will that can be channelled through a single individual. ‘The will of the people’ is a very dangerous phrase in that it implies that anyone who takes a different view is an ‘enemy of the people’ – perhaps not even a proper person at all.

"The battle over proper and improper uses of prorogation goes far deeper even than Brexit. It is a battle for the survival of representative democracy in this country."