Understanding the Boundaries of Legal Political Challenges: The Case of Boris Johnson’s Prorogation of Parliament
Recent discussions revolve around the controversial act of proroguing Parliament by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. In this discussion, we examine the legal and political aspects, debunking common misconceptions regarding the legality of such actions and the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in this matter.
Legal vs. Political Context
The term ‘illegal’ is often mistakenly applied to actions such as the prorogation of Parliament, which, by strict legal definition, was not an act that breached criminal law but was described as 'unlawful.' Contrary to popular belief, unlawful actions, such as the prorogation, do not directly constitute crimes until a specific law is enacted to criminalize them.
No Standing Before the ECJ
Boris Johnson, or any individual, does not have standing to bring a case before the ECJ save for challenging acts of the EU. The ECJ is not an appeals court in the context of UK domestic law. Its role is limited to interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across EU member states. Any challenge to the legality of procedures involving British institutions must be decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK, rendered a decision against the government, voting 11 to 0 in favor of upholding the legality of the prorogation following the court’s ruling. This decision underscores the importance of the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority in matters of UK constitutional law. No further appeals against its judgments are possible, emphasizing the finality of its decisions in these cases.
Democracy and Misinformation
Conversations surrounding the prorogation often get derailed by misinformation and propaganda, particularly from outlets like the "Daily Express" and "Daily Mail." The idea that Britain was in thrall to the EU under the guise of "taking back control" during the 2016 EU referendum was more propaganda than truth. It is not the role of institutions like the ECJ but the UK Parliament and the UK Supreme Court to determine the legality of such events. Misleading information can mislead voters and undermine the very fabric of democracy.
The ECJ and EU Specific Matters
While the ECJ is the arbiter of EU matters, it is not an appropriate body to challenge UK-specific constitutional decisions. The claim that the decision of the Supreme Court being overturned by an EU institution sounds counterintuitive to those who argue for 'Leaver' sovereignty. The UK remains a sovereign nation, and its institutions, particularly the Supreme Court, are the final arbiters in domestic matters. The UK Parliament retains its sovereignty and has merely delegated certain administrative functions to the EU to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and save costs.
Conclusion
While the ECJ serves an important function in interpreting EU law, it is not the proper avenue to contest decisions involving UK constitutional matters. The final and definitive authority rests with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The sovereignty of the UK lies in its Parliament, and actions like the prorogation must be judged by domestic legal standards.