By Gabriel Princewill-
The latest ruling of the Supreme Court is indisputably correct, and should be clear to all dissenting Mps.
Al the hostile reactions from Mps about the court judgements are uncalled for and should stop. The Supreme Court was not as elaborate as they could have been in their expressed reasoning, but the were categorically right. The central validity of their ruling revolves around the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Queen’s prerogative. Parliamentary Sovereignty confers the highest power on the collective body of Parliament which can only be overruled by the Queen, on her initiative.
CONVENTION
Convention theoretically prevents Her Majesty The Queen from exercising this initiative, in order to maintain her historical and traditional position of being above politics. Her detachment from politics avoids the potential of critical scrutiny that can attend such an involvement, and which could be detrimental to her hallowed image. The High Court erred I it’s own judgement by failing to understand the entirety of The Queen’s prerogative in its comprehensive summary which made a flawed reference to her discretion. A discretion which must be voluntarily exercised to nullify the collective wish o Parliament.
Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament must have missed the crucial element of her Majesty The Queen’s initiative being a key pre-requisite to legitimise his request. The British prime minister was ostensibly trying to pave the way for an eventual forced Brexit, deal or no deal.
This to avoid the rigmarole which has so far produced an unedifying impasse in Brexit plans. Unlawful as the prime minister’s initiative in his advice to the Queen was, he can be forgiven for not understanding the depths of what the Queen’s prerogative entails. Surely, the onus was on his legal advisers to direct him appropriately. He may even have wanted to take his chances that the courts would inadvertently provide the needed stamp of approval, which the High Court temporarily did.
LEGAL ADVISERS
Johnson has legal advisers, so the pertinent question is what advice he was given prior to his request. The reasoning provided by The Supreme Court that proroguing parliament would prevent parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions of holding the government to account was in principle correct. However, this explanation is a by product of the overarching fact that the Queen cannot legally be advised to undermine a longstanding constitutional principle like Parliamentary Sovereignty.
However, this wasn’t something their Lordships needed to publicly expound on the nooks and corners of the Queen’s prerogative.It is the duty of learned Mps and their advisers to understand this. Attempts to berate the highly trained and educated Supreme Court judges for delivering a verdict not palatable to the political interests of certain Mps is reprehensible. More so when those lacking restraint in the uncurbed expression of their disapproval of the ruling are glaringly in error on the matter.
IMMUNITY
The royal prerogative confers a level of privilege and immunity to the British monarch that gives her absolute authority to eclipse parliament if she so chooses. The operative word here being ‘chooses’, not advised. Parliament now needs to collectively find a viable deal to penetrate the political barriers hampering the much needed progress to move on and draw a line under this vexing issue.