Last week the Supreme Court unanimously found that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Some of the reactions to this verged on the hysterical. Jacob Rees Mogg for one described it as a “constitutional coup” and “the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution”. While Johnson, knowing better than 11 Supreme Court justices, simply said the decision was “wrong”.
Whatever your views on Brexit, it’s hard to believe that a Prime Minister in 2019 would gag Parliament during an extraordinarily important moment in Britain’s political history. Then blatantly lie about his reasons for doing so. This behaviour was extreme in its defiance of established norms. It was not contrary to any written laws, but the silencing of Parliament flew in the face of Parliamentary sovereignty - a concept which has been held as the bedrock of our constitution since the Revolution of 1688. Similarly, it defied the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament.
In their decision, the Supreme Court simply restored the status quo. But never has the status quo been so controversial. Perhaps this is a sign that the time is ripe for a written constitution (as Anthony Barnett recently argued).
