This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/the-rule-of-law-prevails-against-boris-johnson
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The rule of law prevails against Boris Johnson | The rule of law prevails against Boris Johnson |
| (2 days later) | |
| If further evidence was needed to cast doubts on Mr Johnson’s suitability to be prime minister I give you his reaction to Tuesday’s unanimous supreme court ruling: that the decision was “wrong”. | If further evidence was needed to cast doubts on Mr Johnson’s suitability to be prime minister I give you his reaction to Tuesday’s unanimous supreme court ruling: that the decision was “wrong”. |
| Either he has the arrogance to consider that he is a more experienced and expert constitutional lawyer than all 11 supreme court justices, or, that having assaulted one of the twin pillars of the British constitution, namely parliamentary sovereignty, he would now seek to attack the other, the rule of law. | Either he has the arrogance to consider that he is a more experienced and expert constitutional lawyer than all 11 supreme court justices, or, that having assaulted one of the twin pillars of the British constitution, namely parliamentary sovereignty, he would now seek to attack the other, the rule of law. |
| These options suggest a man with little ability to be self-aware or with little respect for the institutions of government.Rosemary ConquestEast Grinstead, West Sussex | These options suggest a man with little ability to be self-aware or with little respect for the institutions of government.Rosemary ConquestEast Grinstead, West Sussex |
| • Martin Kettle (The supreme court judgment is a devastating blow for a failed prime minister, 24 September) is spot-on that the supreme court’s judgment is “a magisterial landmark in the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty against the residual power of the crown and ministers”. It is a categorical rejection, I would specify, of a “flawed, feudal idea of sovereignty”, where parliament plays second fiddle to “a prime minister armed with Henry VIII powers” (if parliament has any power at all). | • Martin Kettle (The supreme court judgment is a devastating blow for a failed prime minister, 24 September) is spot-on that the supreme court’s judgment is “a magisterial landmark in the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty against the residual power of the crown and ministers”. It is a categorical rejection, I would specify, of a “flawed, feudal idea of sovereignty”, where parliament plays second fiddle to “a prime minister armed with Henry VIII powers” (if parliament has any power at all). |
| The “prime minister and cabinet [are] collectively responsible and accountable to parliament,” declared the court. In its first Miller case, the court described “parliamentary accountability” as “no less fundamental to our constitution than parliamentary sovereignty”. The government did not learn the lessons of the first Miller case. It sat the Miller test again, and failed it a second time. | The “prime minister and cabinet [are] collectively responsible and accountable to parliament,” declared the court. In its first Miller case, the court described “parliamentary accountability” as “no less fundamental to our constitution than parliamentary sovereignty”. The government did not learn the lessons of the first Miller case. It sat the Miller test again, and failed it a second time. |
| To quote from Tuesday’s historic judgment, the government’s actions had “an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy”. The rule of law was under severe attack. The rule of law has prevailed. Professor Dimitrios GiannoulopoulosInaugural chair in law, Goldsmiths, University of London | To quote from Tuesday’s historic judgment, the government’s actions had “an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy”. The rule of law was under severe attack. The rule of law has prevailed. Professor Dimitrios GiannoulopoulosInaugural chair in law, Goldsmiths, University of London |
| • Let us hope MPs don’t waste the second victory Gina Miller has won for them in the way they wasted her first. Two years ago, she won MPs, not just the prime minister, the right to decide whether to trigger article 50. And they simply rubber-stamped Theresa May’s decision. They must do better now, by combining to put the Brexit decision to the people in an up-to-date referendum.Donald MackinnonNewport, Gwent | • Let us hope MPs don’t waste the second victory Gina Miller has won for them in the way they wasted her first. Two years ago, she won MPs, not just the prime minister, the right to decide whether to trigger article 50. And they simply rubber-stamped Theresa May’s decision. They must do better now, by combining to put the Brexit decision to the people in an up-to-date referendum.Donald MackinnonNewport, Gwent |
| • SNP MP Joanna Cherry is understandably cock-a-hoop that the supreme court has decided in favour of Scotland’s court of session’s decision that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. While this may or may not yet prove to be a good day for remainers, it is implicitly less positive for Scottish nationalism. What the supreme court ruling also demonstrates is that Scotland has the ability to perform a demonstrably powerful pan-UK role, particularly if we had a Holyrood government willing to use its powers appropriately, and other than to create division. Martin RedfernEdinburgh | • SNP MP Joanna Cherry is understandably cock-a-hoop that the supreme court has decided in favour of Scotland’s court of session’s decision that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. While this may or may not yet prove to be a good day for remainers, it is implicitly less positive for Scottish nationalism. What the supreme court ruling also demonstrates is that Scotland has the ability to perform a demonstrably powerful pan-UK role, particularly if we had a Holyrood government willing to use its powers appropriately, and other than to create division. Martin RedfernEdinburgh |
| • On Monday Boris Johnson said that the current parliament has the longest session since the civil war, a point made also on the House of Commons library website. As far as I can make out, this is true if one takes the civil war to be 1642-51, ignoring the fighting in Ireland which continued formally until 27 April 1653, and defining the session as sitting days. The long parliament, however, began in November 1640 and continued without prorogation until 20 April 1653 – a total of 3,322 days, but not all sitting days. Then Cromwell shut it down completely – not by prorogation but he certainly stopped it debating. Possibly not a happy precedent in that Cromwell then took over as Lord Protector until his death in 1658.Jane Thick Harwell , Oxfordshire | |
| • According to Johnson, the supreme court’s judgment has made getting a deal more difficult. Surely this is illogical. If, as he claims, proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit, the only effect of the supreme court’s ruling is to make writing the Queen’s speech more difficult because he no longer has five weeks to do it.James WilkinsonShrewsbury, Shropshire | • According to Johnson, the supreme court’s judgment has made getting a deal more difficult. Surely this is illogical. If, as he claims, proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit, the only effect of the supreme court’s ruling is to make writing the Queen’s speech more difficult because he no longer has five weeks to do it.James WilkinsonShrewsbury, Shropshire |
| • Call me paranoid, but is this a replay of the Major/Heseltine v Kinnock exercise? Everyone knows the theory; John Major replaces an unpopular Margaret Thatcher, loses the election to Neil Kinnock and is replaced as Tory leader by Michael Heseltine. Meanwhile, now-prime minister Kinnock loses a vote of confidence, an election is called and Heseltine wins on a landslide for the Tories. Only Major – surprise, surprise – won. End of Heseltine’s career. | • Call me paranoid, but is this a replay of the Major/Heseltine v Kinnock exercise? Everyone knows the theory; John Major replaces an unpopular Margaret Thatcher, loses the election to Neil Kinnock and is replaced as Tory leader by Michael Heseltine. Meanwhile, now-prime minister Kinnock loses a vote of confidence, an election is called and Heseltine wins on a landslide for the Tories. Only Major – surprise, surprise – won. End of Heseltine’s career. |
| Well, what if the 1922 Committee got it right this time? What if, being fully aware of Johnson’s dubious prospects, they engineered his elevation to prime minister, knowing he would eventually fail in his grandiose schemes. The inevitable outcome would be his removal and replacement by Jeremy Hunt, the losing candidate for leader against Johnson and a man who’s silence since has been deafening. Hunt reverses policy direction, readmits the 21 deselected MPs, sells the case for a second referendum – including Remain, his first choice in the 2016 referendum – and in the ensuing general election, an unpopular Jeremy Corbyn would lose and the Tories continue in power. End of Johnson’s political career and a few of his cronies besides. What is more, Gina Miller and the supreme court did all the heavy lifting.Or am I just paranoid?Danny TanzeyThornton Cleveleys, Lancashire | Well, what if the 1922 Committee got it right this time? What if, being fully aware of Johnson’s dubious prospects, they engineered his elevation to prime minister, knowing he would eventually fail in his grandiose schemes. The inevitable outcome would be his removal and replacement by Jeremy Hunt, the losing candidate for leader against Johnson and a man who’s silence since has been deafening. Hunt reverses policy direction, readmits the 21 deselected MPs, sells the case for a second referendum – including Remain, his first choice in the 2016 referendum – and in the ensuing general election, an unpopular Jeremy Corbyn would lose and the Tories continue in power. End of Johnson’s political career and a few of his cronies besides. What is more, Gina Miller and the supreme court did all the heavy lifting.Or am I just paranoid?Danny TanzeyThornton Cleveleys, Lancashire |
| • I won’t be the first person to have spotted the splendid spider brooch on Lady Hale’s dress during her delivery of the supreme court’s ruling. My first thought was that it symbolised the old adage coined by Walter Scott: “O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” But given Boris Johnson’s fondness for the classics, it feels more like Athena’s rebuke to Arachne for the sin of mortal pride – Boris having hubristically assumed he could better the parliamentary scrutiny that is the cornerstone of the UK’s democratic system. Either way, let’s just hope it’s not an invitation to him to “try, try and try again” inspired by Robert the Bruce’s cave fable. I guess we’ll find out in the next few days or so. Colin MontgomeryEdinburgh | • I won’t be the first person to have spotted the splendid spider brooch on Lady Hale’s dress during her delivery of the supreme court’s ruling. My first thought was that it symbolised the old adage coined by Walter Scott: “O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” But given Boris Johnson’s fondness for the classics, it feels more like Athena’s rebuke to Arachne for the sin of mortal pride – Boris having hubristically assumed he could better the parliamentary scrutiny that is the cornerstone of the UK’s democratic system. Either way, let’s just hope it’s not an invitation to him to “try, try and try again” inspired by Robert the Bruce’s cave fable. I guess we’ll find out in the next few days or so. Colin MontgomeryEdinburgh |
| • Lady Hale is not the first titled English woman to dress her chest with a spider (Say it with a brooch: what message was Lady Hale’s spider sending?, theguardian.com, 24 September). In March 1595 Duke Frederick of Württemberg’s ambassador to England reported back from the court of Queen Elizabeth I. The 61-year-old Queen had been wearing a red robe interwoven with gold thread, studded with large diamonds and precious stones: “Over her breast, which was bare, she wore a long filigree lace shawl, on which sat a hideous black spider that looked as if it were natural and alive. Many might have been deceived by it.” The spider was a piece of raised embroidery on a network scarf probably designed to look like a web. t certainly alludes to her ability to trap and kill all malefactors like flies. I dread to think what grisly punishment Queen Elizabeth would have devised for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.James HallLondon | • Lady Hale is not the first titled English woman to dress her chest with a spider (Say it with a brooch: what message was Lady Hale’s spider sending?, theguardian.com, 24 September). In March 1595 Duke Frederick of Württemberg’s ambassador to England reported back from the court of Queen Elizabeth I. The 61-year-old Queen had been wearing a red robe interwoven with gold thread, studded with large diamonds and precious stones: “Over her breast, which was bare, she wore a long filigree lace shawl, on which sat a hideous black spider that looked as if it were natural and alive. Many might have been deceived by it.” The spider was a piece of raised embroidery on a network scarf probably designed to look like a web. t certainly alludes to her ability to trap and kill all malefactors like flies. I dread to think what grisly punishment Queen Elizabeth would have devised for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.James HallLondon |
| • Isn’t the sanctity of the British judiciary the very thing that the Brexiters want?Valerie LipmanLondon | • Isn’t the sanctity of the British judiciary the very thing that the Brexiters want?Valerie LipmanLondon |
| • A peerage for Gina Miller; a double scotch for Joanna Cherry.Mike VallelySeaford, East Sussex | • A peerage for Gina Miller; a double scotch for Joanna Cherry.Mike VallelySeaford, East Sussex |
| • The fifth letter above was amended on 26 September 2019 to correct the year of Oliver Cromwell’s death. | |
| UK supreme court | UK supreme court |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Boris Johnson | Boris Johnson |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| Gina Miller | Gina Miller |
| Scotland | Scotland |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version