Local Comment on Supreme Court Prorogation Judgment

Published on: 24 Sep, 2019
Updated on: 28 Sep, 2019

Guildford’s MP Anne Milton says she welcomes the “clear and unambiguous” judgment of the Supreme Court on the suspension of Parliament by the minority Conservative. She will be in attendance at Westminster tomorrow.

Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Ms Milton, an Independent MP since the Conservative whip was withdrawn from her, said: “The judgment was clear and unambiguous. I was surprised, shocked and disappointed when the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament and so welcome the fact that Parliament will be sitting tomorrow to do the job we are here to do.

“This is not simply about Brexit it is about Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Executive.”

Christian Holliday during the EU referendum campaign

Christian Holliday, a former borough councillor, Conservative Party member and a leading Leave campaigner locally, said: “I was surprised the court did not see prorogation as a ‘Proceeding in Parliament’, as defined in the Bill of Rights.

“Nonetheless, the judgment was unanimous. I hope Remainer MPs will on their return to work tomorrow use their time constructively rather than undermining the Prime Minister’s negotiating position further.

“Scrutiny is one thing. Continuing to frustrate the will of the electorate is quite another. Remainer MPs can’t avoid a general election forever.”

Zoe Franklin

The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate for Guildford, Zoe Franklin, said: “The Supreme Court’s decision has proven Boris Johnson, once again, to be unfit to be prime minister of our country.

“Today’s unanimous verdict is important as it confirmed that nobody, not even the prime minister, is above the law. Judges confirmed that Johnson acted unlawfully by shutting down Parliament in order to stop it from doing its job and holding the government to account. Boris Johnson must now resign.

“It was confirmed earlier that the Speaker of the House, John Bercow, has said that Parliament will be recalled and MPs will take their seats again tomorrow at 11.30am. This is crucial as, with potentially just five weeks to go until a disastrous no-deal Brexit, MPs must be able to question the Conservative government on its plans, work to stop the UK crashing out with no-deal, and ensure that the people of the UK have the final decision on the Brexit deal through a people’s vote.”

Brian Creese, Guildford Labour Party spokesperson, have been invited to comment.

Responses to Local Comment on Supreme Court Prorogation Judgment

David Roberts Reply

September 24, 2019 at 2:48 pm

Mr Holliday seems to have a mystical hotline to the “will of the electorate”, whose composition has changed by 10% or more since the 2016 referendum. Do MPs have no democratic legitimacy as well?
Jim Allen Reply

September 24, 2019 at 4:21 pm

It’s a very dangerous situation. The Remainers action is simply an attempt to reverse the country’s democratic vote. The next vote will be a general election. Will these people go to law during the five-year term, claiming their chosen MP failed and the election result should not stand?

They want us to keep voting until we vote the’right’ way, in their view. It’s a very dangerous, anti-democratic situation
John Armstrong Reply

September 24, 2019 at 5:17 pm

Once again the Judges find for Europe.
- Stuart Barnes Reply
  
  September 25, 2019 at 8:16 am
  
  What a surprise!
John Perkins Reply

September 25, 2019 at 12:38 pm

The UK Supreme Court has decided that it has the right to indulge itself in politics and is superior to the Executive and the Queen. Maybe it is right, but this country is a democracy, so perhaps they themselves need to be subject to public election in order to protect us from tyranny. Too many lawyers regard themselves as lone guardians of what’s right.

By avoiding considering the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum, the court lays itself open to an accusation of bias. Careful consideration is given to the sovereignty of parliament in the form of individual MPs, though none to the people who underpin it and little to the Executive appointed by them. Many of those MPs might find themselves unemployed if they were willing to submit to the election they so recently demanded. Perish the thought they have their own interests in mind over those of the country.

It may be a small point, but in its judgment the court chose to record the decision of the Court of Session in Scotland as though it occurred after that of the High Court of England and Wales, giving it an appearance of a precedence it did not merit; the two decisions happened chronologically the other way around and, being representative of a much larger body of people, it’s not unreasonable to consider the High Court superior.

Proceedings in the court in Northern Ireland were dismissed as not relevant because the case had not been allowed to proceed and appeals in England and Scotland were already in progress, which rather suggests that court has little respect for its Northern Ireland equivalent. It also implies that the proceedings and judgement in the High Court in England were irrelevant too as that court decided it did not have jurisdiction, only themselves and, presumably, the Court of Session in Scotland are qualified according to the Supreme Court judges.

Also seriously considered as a factor was the role of John Major in supporting the appeal as “a former Prime Minister with the first-hand experience of prorogation”. So he is. In 1997 he prorogued Parliament to avoid embarrassment to his party from the Downey report into the cash-for-questions affair, the last of the allegations of “sleaze” made against his administration.

Those who believe that there is no harm in lawyers being involved in politics should study any dictator, or at least read Charles Gardiner’s poem The Hornet and the Beetle, which ends “They’ll take your coat and carcass too.”.
Wayne Smith Reply

September 25, 2019 at 8:21 pm

Zoe Franklin says that MPs must “ensure that the people of the UK have the final decision on the Brexit deal through a people’s vote.”

Is that the same people’s vote that the Lib Dem party leader Jo Swinson is on record as saying she would not honour if that second referendum resulted in another Leave outcome?

https://youtu.be/1_YUCqiBxQg
John Schluter Reply

September 26, 2019 at 10:02 am

According to the reasoning given by the government for the length of time that Parliament was to be prorogued, it was purely in order to prepare for a Queen’s speech. Boris Johnson and his ministers repeatedly denied that it was to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny on his Brexit plans. The Attorney General even claimed it was perfectly legal.

If this were true why did the PM state this morning (September 24) that he disagreed with the ruling and said that it was all about stopping Brexit? A view echoed by some here.

Either he prorogued Parliament to avoid Brexit scrutiny and prevent debate or he lied on the reason for doing so.

As for judicial decisions finding “for Europe”, I was under the impression that the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the government had acted unlawfully. I thank the judges for finding for justice and truth.
- John Armstrong Reply
  
  September 26, 2019 at 3:30 pm
  
  Since when was an offence deemed lawful until after the event.
Robert Burch Reply

September 26, 2019 at 2:25 pm

Worth remembering that the 2016 referendum on EU membership wasn’t a binding instruction to the government or parliament (unlike the 2011 alternative vote referendum which would have automatically led to a change – see here: https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/)

The UK is a representative democracy. MPs are elected to represent each constituency’s interest in parliament.

It is quite legitimate for MPs to work on the implications of the referendum result and conclude that leaving may not be in our best interest. If we don’t like their conclusions, we will have the opportunity to change MPs in the coming elections.

The conflicts between Parliament, government and the judiciary are a clear sign that our democracy works as no branch of it is able to act by disregarding the others.
John Perkins Reply

September 27, 2019 at 9:48 am

Once again we are told the referendum “wasn’t binding”. Arguably true, though Parliament enacted a law to implement it and that is binding.

Almost every one of those MPs now trying to prevent the UK leaving promised to abide by the result and stood for election promising actually to do so. None of them made those promises conditional at the time. Those in constituencies which voted to leave are not representing their constituency’s interests.

The same MPs are also avoiding any election which might resolve the difficulty. Not one of those who have switched parties offered to submit to a by-election and they are doing everything they can to prevent a general election. The only sensible conclusion is that they know they would be out of a job if the electorate were able to judge them.

Two things more than any other are standing in the way of the will of the people being enacted. First, the absurd Fixed Term Parliaments Act inflicted on us by the Liberal Democrats for no better reason than they wanted to protect themselves from the “partners” in the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. It’s now being used to protect MPs from having to submit to election.

Second, the equally absurd Supreme Court inflicted on us by Tony Blair for no apparent reason at the time. Now the reason is clear.
- Robert Burch Reply
  
  September 27, 2019 at 1:37 pm
  
  What is the Law that requires Brexit to be implemented?
  
  Many MPs stood in 2017 agreeing to implement Brexit, but perhaps they now think it is not in our best interests and so are acting accordingly?
  
  The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is controversial, but it at least removes the ability for a prime minister to call an election at will. Most countries work in this way (eg USA).
  
  Before the Supreme Court was created, the same role was carried out by the Law Lords, so it is not a new concept: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/the-supreme-court/
  - John Perkins Reply
    
    September 29, 2019 at 11:13 am
    
    A motion (not legally binding) passed in the House of Commons on December 7 2016 by 448 votes to 75 stated: “this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June, and further calls on the government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”.
    
    The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/contents/enacted) followed authorising the PM to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU under the terms of Article 50, which she duly did.
    
    The earlier motion clearly expressed the intention of Parliament is demanding the notification and that intention became law when the Act received Royal Assent. Parliament can choose to repeal the Act or introduce one to reverse it, but it cannot otherwise prevent withdrawal.
    
    Perhaps MPs always thought it was not in our best interest to leave, but simply kept quiet about it at the time. Is there a substantial difference between telling a lie and failing to tell the truth? Assuming they all genuinely changed their minds after the election, would it not have been more honourable for them to say so and ask their constituents if they agreed?
    
    If the Supreme Court merely took over the role of the Law Lords then why bother? The older system worked perfectly well.