during my first skimming, one paragraph jumps out at me
“For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate
caution. “
And within that paragraph in particular the phrase “without reasonable justification” stands out.
The problem, at least as I see it, is what is the definition of “reasonable”?
The judiciary has elected to step in and define this term on behalf of parliament.
OK, parliament is sovereign. but what does that mean? It means that parliament makes its own law to govern the nation and to govern itself. How does it govern itself? It uses a PM who is entrusted with certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to determine when to prorogue parliament. So the court was asked to step in on parliament’s self-regulation. That seems in error to me.
Beyond the use of the term “reasonable” is the use of term “extreme” in the next paragraph. Extreme by whose definition? This all seems subjective to me and is why i consider the supreme court’s decision politically motivated. The only political motivation that occurs to me at this moment is that the court— yes, every one of them (who needed extra convincing)— is controlled by globalists.
Looking to the future, how will future UK PMs ever prorogue parliament in cases just like this, in which parliament is actively interfering with international diplomacy being carried out by the PM?
I think the supreme court is wrong and rather than congratulating themselves on how they saved the UK they should have focused on how the could avoid dooming the UK to future rounds of similar legislative-cum-diplomatic crises in the near future.
The entire UK parliamentary system seems creaky and in need of an overhaul, otherwise there it is an open invitation to more judiciary meddling in UK politics.
(And now unfortunately for the EU, it has to deal with this newly enlarged mess. UK and EU businesses must be reeling even more than before from the uncertainty in the markets...)
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The Prime Minister is indeed entrusted with those responsibilities, but he is entrusted in the expectation that the precedents and conventions in the exercise of those responsibilities will be respected. In the case of prorogation, those conventions are that prorogation is a formality applied by consent after discussion with all parties, and lasts for only a few days prior to a new session. If, as in this case, there was no discussion, no consent and the prorogation was of unprecedented length, then it's reasonable to question whether the trust placed in the Prime Minister has been abused.
Really? All eleven of them?
The probability of that being the case. already extremely low for a variety of reasons, disappears to near zero with the unanimity.
The British judiciary is traditionally apolitical and temperamentally conservative. Of course it's impossible to prove one way or another that individual judges, when trying Judicial Reviews of government actions (a well-established procedure, by the way, though until now mostly on relatively minor issues, such as the pension rights of Gurkha soldiers, compensation for land compulsorily purchased for the HS2 high-speed rail line etc) might be swayed in part by their own political views.
But that eleven of the country's most senior judges, representing all three UK jurisdictions, should all be so swayed in the same direction at the same time over an issue on which all sections of society are deeply divided, strains credibility beyond breaking point.