This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Boris Johnson’s Suspension of Parliament Was Unlawful, U.K. Supreme Court Rules Brexit Turmoil Intensifies as Court Rebukes Boris Johnson
(about 5 hours later)
LONDON — The British Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament, dealing him another heavy blow and thrusting the nation’s politics into even deeper turmoil, barely a month before Britain could leave the European Union. LONDON — Britain’s highest court, in an extraordinary rebuke that deepened the country’s convulsive debate over Brexit, ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully when he suspended Parliament in his unyielding drive to pull Britain out of the European Union.
The court ruled unanimously that the suspension of Parliament until Oct. 14 was void and that the lawmakers were therefore still in session and could continue the debate over Brexit that Mr. Johnson short-circuited when he asked the queen to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament for five weeks. Mr. Johnson, determined to make a break from Europe by the end of next month whatever the cost, had maneuvered to cut out the lawmakers, many of whom opposed his damn-the-torpedoes approach, in the weeks before the deadline to withdraw from the union.
The decision delivered a legal and political jolt to Britain, where the courts have historically avoided politics and where, unlike in the United States, there is little precedent for judicial review of government decisions. That record had led political and legal analysts to speculate that the court might decide that it had no authority to rule on the prime minister’s actions, or might arrive at a mixed judgment. But the British Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prime minister had overstepped, and effectively declared Parliament back in session. As lawmakers prepared to reconvene on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson, facing calls to resign, said he would cut short a trip to the United Nations and return home.
Instead, the judges made a landmark decision to step into the middle of a fierce political clash, and delivered a resounding defeat for the prime minister and an unequivocal victory to his critics. Reporters and analysts on British news sites and broadcast channels resorted time and again to the word “unprecedented.” The ruling was more than just another political blow to a leader who has suffered more than his share of setbacks. It was a seminal legal moment in Britain, where the courts have historically steered clear of political disputes, and vivid evidence of how the anguished debate over Brexit has strained Britain’s most hallowed public institutions.
Lady Hale, the president of the court, speaking for the 11-judge panel that heard the case, said, “The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” Most immediately, the ruling raised questions about the future of Mr. Johnson, who was already reeling after multiple defeats in Parliament, a rebellion in his own Conservative Party, and new questions about his ties to a young businesswoman when he was mayor of London.
“The prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect,” she added, saying the parliament was no longer suspended. Speaking before a meeting with President Trump at the United Nations, Mr. Johnson said he disagreed “profoundly” with the ruling and would forge ahead with his plans to leave the bloc. But he added, “Let’s be absolutely clear, we respect the judiciary in our country, we respect the court.”
The speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who presides over debate, said the chamber would reconvene on Wednesday — nearly three weeks earlier than the schedule Mr. Johnson had set. Mr. Trump, who has cultivated Mr. Johnson as a like-minded populist, played down the significance of the decision. Noting that he had lost several cases in the United States Supreme Court before gaining some victories, Mr. Trump said, “For him, it’s another day in the office.”
Showing no sign of being chastened by the ruling, Mr. Johnson did not rule out suspending Parliament again, but did not specify when. “I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court,” he told reporters in New York, where he is attending the United Nations General Assembly. Still, the debate over whether and how to leave the European Union, which voters agreed to do in a June 2016 referendum, proved the undoing of Mr. Johnson’s two predecessors as divided Britons took to the street to protest. Now, he faces an uncertain future as he ventures back into Parliament.
“I think the most important thing is that we get on and deliver Brexit on Oct. 31, and clearly the claimants in this case are determined to try to frustrate that,” he added. On Tuesday, at the same time the prime minister was meeting with Mr. Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, told a cheering audience at his party’s conference that Mr. Johnson had “misled the country” and would soon become “the shortest-serving prime minister there’s ever been.”
Mr. Johnson has suffered an extraordinary string of legal and political defeats since becoming prime minister in July. He lost in a succession of Parliamentary votes, lost his majority in the House of Commons and lost the support of some members of his Conservative Party — including his own brother. Mr. Johnson reiterated his call for a general election, but there were no signs he was any closer to winning the necessary two-thirds approval in Parliament to schedule a vote. Parliament seemed likely to lapse back into paralysis as the deadline for Britain’s exit from the European Union — Oct. 31 — draws closer.
A new threat emerged over the weekend, when The Sunday Times of London reported that when Mr. Johnson was mayor of London, his office directed government grants and coveted spots in trade delegations to an entrepreneur, a young woman, whose apartment he often visited during working hours. Defenders of the prime minister complained that the court ruling would weaken his hand in negotiating an exit deal with Brussels. That contention seemed debatable, given the deep gulf between the two sides, but the court’s decision certainly tarnishes him at home, at a time when his other stumbles have yet to dent his popularity.
This month, an English court ruled that the judiciary could not pass judgment on how or why Mr. Johnson had suspended Parliament. But days later, Scotland’s highest civil court ruled that the suspension was an unlawful effort to stymie debate before the Oct. 31 Brexit date, which Mr. Johnson had pledged to meet even if Britain and Brussels did not reach an agreement on the terms. Unlike in the United States, there is little precedent in Britain for judicial review of government decisions. That had led political and legal analysts to speculate that the court might decide it had no authority to rule on the prime minister’s actions, or to deliver a limited rebuke.
Instead, the court’s 11 justices cast aside this tradition of restraint and delivered an unsparing denunciation of the government’s actions, and an unequivocal victory for the prime ministers’ opponents.
“The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification,” said the court’s president, Baroness Brenda Hale, using the British term for suspending the body.
“The prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect,” she said, declaring that Parliament was no longer suspended.
But with so many forces at play, members of Parliament were uncertain how the situation might unfold when the House of Commons was gaveled back into session.
The speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, said the chamber would meet Wednesday, nearly three weeks earlier than the date Mr. Johnson had set.
Mr. Bercow, who has been a thorn in the government’s side because of his habit of allowing backbenchers to influence the debate over Brexit, said the justices “have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinize the executive and hold ministers to account.”
“As the embodiment of our parliamentary democracy,” he said, “the House of Commons must convene without delay.”
While the lawmakers scrambled to plot strategy for their unexpected parliamentary session, legal analysts pored over the court’s written opinion to determine just how much it changed the landscape of British constitutional law. On first glance, the answer seemed to be: a great deal.
“It’s striking and unprecedented and will send a shock wave through the U.K.’s democratic institutions,” said Raphael Hogarth, an associate at the Institute for Government, a research group.
“There are some aspects of Parliament’s role in holding the executive to account that we previously thought were just established practice, or perhaps convention,” Mr. Hogarth said. “But what the Supreme Court has done today is rolled them into legal doctrine.”
Mr. Johnson’s next move was not clear, and he did not rule out suspending Parliament again. While he professed respect for the courts, he complained that the decision reflected the views of those who opposed Brexit — and, by implication, the will of the British people, who voted narrowly to leave the bloc.
“I think the most important thing is that we get on and deliver Brexit on Oct. 31, and clearly the claimants in this case are determined to try to frustrate that,” Mr. Johnson told reporters.
Experts have warned that a British withdrawal from the bloc without a formal agreement with the European Union could do serious damage to the economy.
Mr. Johnson has suffered an extraordinary string of legal and political defeats since becoming prime minister in July. He lost a succession of Parliamentary votes, lost his majority in the House of Commons and lost the support of several members of his Conservative Party — including his own brother.
A new threat emerged over the weekend, when The Sunday Times of London reported that when Mr. Johnson was mayor of London, his office directed government grants and coveted spots in trade delegations to an entrepreneur, a young woman, whose apartment it said he often visited during working hours.
The legal challenges to Mr. Johnson’s suspension of Parliament had begun almost immediately.
Earlier this month, an English court ruled that the judiciary could not pass judgment on how or why Mr. Johnson had acted. But days later, Scotland’s highest civil court ruled that the suspension was an unlawful effort to stymie debate before the Brexit deadline, which Mr. Johnson has pledged to meet even if London and Brussels do not reach an agreement on the terms of a British withdrawal.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Johnson’s action was unjustified and that his motive did not matter.On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Johnson’s action was unjustified and that his motive did not matter.
The judges “have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinize the executive and hold ministers to account,” Mr. Bercow said. “As the embodiment of our parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay.”
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, said the court had documented “a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power” by Mr. Johnson, adding that he would “demand that Parliament is recalled.” At the party’s annual conference, Mr. Corbyn was scheduled to give his big speech on Wednesday, but delivered it on Tuesday afternoon, instead.
“This unelected prime minister should now resign,” he told party members, prompting chants of “Johnson out.”
The timing of Parliament’s return is doubly bad for Mr. Johnson because the Conservatives are scheduled to hold their annual conference early next week to showcase the party’s policies ahead of a possible general election. Unless the prime minister can assemble an unlikely majority to suspend Parliament again, that set-piece event may now clash with parliamentary proceedings.The timing of Parliament’s return is doubly bad for Mr. Johnson because the Conservatives are scheduled to hold their annual conference early next week to showcase the party’s policies ahead of a possible general election. Unless the prime minister can assemble an unlikely majority to suspend Parliament again, that set-piece event may now clash with parliamentary proceedings.
Mr. Johnson will cut short his New York trip and fly back to London on Tuesday night, after speaking by phone with his cabinet, government officials said. Mr. Johnson planned to cut short his New York trip and fly back to London on Tuesday night, after deliberating by phone with his cabinet, government officials said.
As a practical matter, it was not clear how much the decision would change the government’s immediate approach to Brexit. In the days before they were dispersed, members of the House of Commons pushed through a law — over the prime minister’s fierce opposition — that would prohibit Mr. Johnson from pursuing a “no-deal Brexit.” As a practical matter, it was not clear how much the court decision would change the government’s immediate approach to Brexit. In the days before they were dispersed, members of the House of Commons pushed through a law — over the prime minister’s fierce opposition — that would prohibit Mr. Johnson from pursuing a “no-deal Brexit.”
But in symbolic terms, the court ruling was a stinging rebuke for the prime minister. It raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II in asking her to suspend the Parliament. And it added to the perception that his Conservative government was running roughshod over Britain’s most hallowed political conventions in its zeal to extract the country from Europe. In symbolic terms, though, the court ruling was a stinging rebuke. It raised the question of whether he had misled the queen in asking her to suspend Parliament. And it added to the perception that his government was willing to run roughshod over Britain’s political conventions in its zeal to extract the country from Europe.
Mr. Johnson has insisted that he is attempting to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Brussels. But opposition politicians and European Union officials contend that he is merely going through the motions to shore up his support in Britain, preparing to blame the bloc when nothing results. Before his meeting with Mr. Trump, an American reporter asked Mr. Johnson if he planned to resign because of his handling of the matter.
Twice this month, he asked Parliament to call a snap election, and both times he fell far short of the two-thirds approval he needed. The Labour Party balked at supporting an election out of fear that Mr. Johnson would schedule it before Oct. 31, in the hopes of using a victory at the polls to push through a no-deal Brexit. “That was a very nasty question,” Mr. Trump interjected.
The Supreme Court decision on Tuesday, which came after three days of televised oral arguments, had been eagerly anticipated in Britain because of its political and legal ramifications. Mr. Johnson, however, was more understanding.
“We’re in uncharted territory,” said James Grant, a senior lecturer in law at King’s College London. “I think he was asking a question, to be fair, that a lot of British reporters would have asked,” he said.
Dr. Grant said he believed that it would have been dangerous for the Supreme Court to side with the English court. The suspension, he argued, clearly deprived the House of Commons of its responsibility to scrutinize the government’s policy on Brexit, an issue of critical national importance.
But other legal experts worry that upholding the Scottish ruling could set a troubling precedent, opening the door to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it.
Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, some legal analysts say, there is no going back.