In terms of exposing the holes, gaps and
inconsistencies in the UK’s unwritten constitution, Brexit is the gift that
just keeps giving. It is, of course, an
entirely natural concomitant of having two or more different legal systems in
operation that something which is lawful in one can be unlawful in another. It is perfectly possible that the Scottish
court which ruled prorogation unlawful and the English court which ruled it
lawful are both entirely correct in terms of their own respective legal
systems. The problem arises in that the
same action – prorogation – has effect in both jurisdictions, and it cannot
remain both lawful and unlawful for long.
The Supreme Court will make a legal
ruling, of course, rather than a political one, but the real impact of their
decision will be political. They could
rule that it is lawful, but however such a ruling is presented it will
inevitably look like a statement that English law trumps Scottish law. Telling Scotland that their law is inferior
isn’t the best way of promoting the idea of a union of equals. On the other hand, they could rule that the decision
cannot be lawful overall unless it is lawful in all relevant
jurisdictions. That would be an entirely
reasonable legal outcome, reminding the UK government that it needs to consider
the law in all parts of the UK before acting, but it would inevitably cue a hostile
response from Brexiteers towards those ‘uppity Jocks’ who dare to have a legal
system which stands in the way of the English majority. Another good way of making the Scots feel
like valued partners.
The words of that famous Scot who talked
about weaving a tangled web will surely be ringing loudly in the PM’s ears.
Posts
5 comments:
Can't wait for the Scots to go independent. Just imagine the economic hardship after leaving the union!
Maybe Donald Trump will make an offer to buy the country. Granted, a whole lot less to offer than Greenland but for sure a damn sight cheaper!
"Just imagine the economic hardship after leaving the union!" That's your opinion, to which you are, of course, entirely entitled. I would point out, however, that other opinions are available - some of them even supported by evidence rather than sweeping assertion.
And doubtless these 'other opinions' are also of the view that the UK would benefit economically from leaving the EU.
See, nothing is ever what it seems!
Actually, it's far from 'doubtless'. But I almost admire your mastery of the utter non sequitur.
You draw out some very interesting points, but one assumption is not correct in that the English and Scottish legal systems “are equal” – well, it once was when the Scottish Parliament signed the Act of Union, but then the ink dried on the document and from that moment – England Rules -O.K.
I have only read the outline of the decision which was delivered and it states that HMQ did act lawfully in the actions that was taken, but the motivation was “political” by those ghastly politicians who made her do it. Which in itself was a neat way for the judges to hang on to their jobs.
Post a Comment