reedlangen1_TOLGA AKMENAFPGetty Images_westminster

ردة فعل حماة بريطانيا الدستوريين

Sep 26, 2019 Nicholas Reed Langen

لندن- ان الدستور الامريكي ليس " اتفاق على الانتحار" حسب العبارة الشهيرة لقاضي المحكمة العليا الامريكية روبرت اتش جاكسون ولكن بالنسبة لرئيس الوزراء البريطاني بوريس جونسون فإن دستور المملكة المتحدة غير المدون يمكن ان يكون بمثابة انتحار – بالنسبة لمستقبله السياسي على اقل تقدير. لاحقا لقرار المحكمة العليا البريطانيه والتي تم التوصل اليه بالاجماع بإن جونسون قد تصرف بشكل غير قانوني فيما يتعلق بتعليق عمل البرلمان في وقت سابق من هذا الشهر ، أصبحت فترة حكم جونسون كقائد لبريطانيا في خطر كبير .

يأتي الحكم في خضم اضطرابات دستورية تعم العالم الغربي برمته وذلك بسبب قادة شعبويين اشعلوا الصراع بين حكم القانون وحكم " الناس " والذين يتم اختزال ارادتهم بالزعيم الشعبوي . ان الحكومات الشعبوية على جانبي الاطلنطي قد تخلت عن التقاليد والاعراف الدستورية والسوابق القضائية وذلك من اجل الاستفادة من اي ميزة ممكنة كما حاول جونسون عمله من خلال قراره بتعليق البرلمان.

ان من النادر ان يكون موضوع جلسات البرلمان مثيرا للجدل ففي الاحوال العادية فإن الحكومة تتمتع باغلبية واضحة في مجلس العموم مما يمكنها من تمرير الاجندة التشريعية لكن جونسون سعى لتعليق عمل البرلمان لخمسة اسابيع عوضا عن 4-5 ايام الاعتيادية مما يعني انه كان من الواضح وبشكل محرج ان هذا لم يكن تعليقا عاديا لعمل البرلمان. لقد كانت هناك محاولة ضعيفة من جونسون وهو رئيس وزراء غير معروف بالتزامه بالحقيقة ان يدعي ان فترة الخمسة اسابيع مرتبطة بالعطلة البرلمانية العادية في سبتمبر وذلك عندما تعقد الاحزاب السياسية الرئيسية مؤتمراتها ولكن من الواضح ان جونسون كان مهتما بتقليل قدرة البرلمان على منع سعيه للانسحاب من الاتحاد الاوروبي بدون اتفاق .

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 Comments on this article

John Sweeney Sep 29, 2019

Ho ho! The UK "Supreme Court" didn't even exist until the EU mandated its creation. Its ruling is just the EU meddling in British politics -- precisely the sort of exercise that brought about the Brexit vote.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
New Cavendish Sep 29, 2019

This is a great article, well articulating the import of the Supreme Court's action; however, the headline is debatable. The Supreme Court is not per-se a "constitutional guardian"; rather it is the guardian of the rule of law, in the great tradition of the Common Law courts, as illustrated by the 1610 King's Bench decision cited below and by other famous decisions, such as Lord Mansfield's judgment finding chattel slavery contrary to the common law. The point is important because the tendency to exaggerate the role of the Supreme Court will play into the hands of Johnson and his ilk (cf. his comments today about "holding the judges accountable"). The Court would not overrule a legitimate Act of Parliament. It upholds parliamentary democracy and the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. That's quite different from the role of the US Supreme Court in holding Acts of Congress subject to its constitutional interpretations. Parliament could always change the law. Until it does, it is the role of the courts to put on their wigs and defend the rule of law against all challenges, popular or not.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
About Face Sep 29, 2019

Prorogation of Parliament has nothing to do will the will of the people - don't get confused. Its Boris, exercise of his what he thinks, his executive prerogative. Of course, he was unlawful but Brexit was a lawful exercise, with an outcome that is ....hmm....unspeakable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Alexander Sep 29, 2019

‘Rather than yielding to some concocted “will of the people,” these institutions have emphasized that some principles are beyond majoritarian whims.’

Nicely put. As an elderly, law-abiding holder of a British passport, hence also a citizen of the European Union, I am sick to the teeth of hearing Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and many another politician tell me about “the will of the people”. These are politicians who wholeheartedly, even in the face of global warming, endorse an economy based largely on the feverish, frenetic, unceasing, and ubiquitous generation of artificial demand. They are not highly intelligent, but they do have enough intelligence to know that the public will is open to systematic influence, whether through massive advertising or through their own sophistical propaganda. They cannot be taken seriously, except insofar as they are conceivably leading humanity to extinction.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 26, 2019

Nicholas Reed Langen says , the UK Parliament and Supreme Court “should be seen as the vanguard of resistance to populism.” The Supreme Court, which will be 10 years old on 1 October, is the highest court in the United Kingdom, sitting opposite the Houses of Parliament. Its location symbolises the relationship between the two: Parliament makes the laws, and the Supreme Court decides on the correct use of those laws when there is a dispute.
If the justices think a law conflicts with human rights safeguards, they can tell Parliament to reconsider the legislation. They have the final say on the biggest legal issues and exercise the ultimate check and balance on the UK's laws and constitution. And Brexit raises what they consider to be a genuinely important point about how the UK's laws should be interpreted and applied.
This week the court’s 11 justices ruled unanimously that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, after a three-day hearing last week to resolve contradictory judgments made by Scottish and English courts. “The quashing of Johnson’s prorogation was extraordinary, but both constitutionally correct and necessary.”
The court was told that “the mother of parliaments [is] being shut down by the father of lies” - Aidan O’Neill QC, counsel for the SNP MP Joanna Cherry and other parliamentarians challenged the government’s decision. As Parliament had not been prorogued, its members could return and resume their duties.
The government had argued that the prime minister’s decision was purely “political” and there are no absolute legal standards by which any court can judge whether his actions were proper or not. According to the author, it would have been reasonable for the Supreme Court to find the prorogation lawful, from a purely political perspective, After all, prorogation is nominally the sole prerogative of the executive. But the justices made it clear that there was no dilemma of law versus politics.
The author says, “rather than yielding to some concocted ‘will of the people,’” the Parliament and Supreme Court “have emphasized that some principles are beyond majoritarian whims.” One of the first fundamental questions for the justices was whether Johnson’s private advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was a proper or improper use of the government’s executive powers – that is, whether the justices have the power to intervene in a prime minister’s decision.
They concluded that the suspension had been enforced by Johnson purely as a device to stymie MPs’ scrutiny of Brexit policy at a moment of national crisis. Lord Pannick maintained that Parliament is sovereign. For the government to use its power to evade that scrutiny overturns the basic principles of constitutional law. Johnson was motivated by an “improper purpose”, namely to avoid parliamentary control over his policies.
The author says, the court “did acknowledge that this was terrain in which it would interfere only in exceptional circumstances. The government must provide reasons, but in considering those reasons,” the court would give them “a great deal of latitude.” However the government had not given a statement to the courts, and would not have recommended a five week-long prorogation unless Johnson had wanted to avoid being challenged.
Conservative MPs like Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Philip Hammond, Rory Stewart, Sir Nicholas Soames – Churchill’s grandson – were “willing to sacrifice their political careers to constrain an overreaching government.” The heroes “personify the need to put such principles before party loyalty.” The author says this is a lesson for the Republicans, who stand by their mendacious and corrupt president, to learn. Trump does not respect the rule of law and the values that underpin the Constitution, and they pledge “a greater loyalty to their political tribe than to their country.”
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Sep 26, 2019

This article does not clarify the background to this case. The Supreme Court only came into existence 10 years ago because of the Constitutional Reform act of 2005 which was designed to bring British law into conformity with European law. Furthermore, the Scottish legal system has always been separate- indeed it has its own terms of art unfamiliar to those South of the border. The English tradition, unlike the American, has always been to afford greater latitude to the Executive. Thus an English high Court sided with BoJo but Scotland's highest court, as this article mentions, came down heavily against him. This placed the Supreme Court in a ticklish position. However, people could see for themselves that Lord Pannick was mopping the floor with Lord Keen, the Government's attorney. It would have been difficult for the Bench to decide in any other way.
It should be mentioned that we have an unprecedented situation because of the coalition government's thoughtless passing of a Parliament Fixed Term act which took away the PMs discretionary power to call an election. Previously, Corbyn had let Theresa May call an election and BoJo hoped that Corbyn could be baited into accepting the same challenge this time. Now, we are in uncharted waters. The British constitution has been changed by a series of accidents. The irony is that Brexit has made it more 'European' in the sense of increasing justiciability and reducing the scope of the doctrine of political question.

It remains to be seen whether voters think BoJo is mendacious as opposed to amateurish. It may be that Leavers prevail in a General Election. If that happens, it is likely that the power of the Judiciary will be pruned back because it was only the need to conform to what Europe required would no longer obtain. Thus, it would be wrong to see this case as having to do with resistance to 'majoritarian whims'. Had BoJo a stable majority, the argument could have been made that prorogation couldn't stymie anything save a nuisance. However, everybody could see that Tory MPs- including BoJo's brother- were defecting right and left or had had the Whip withdrawn. Thus, this judgment- though it may become a landmark- is the product of unusual circumstances which may well be utterly changed by a General Election.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.