The Supreme Court, it appears, is to be punished for rolling back the unlawful suspension of Parliament. There is always scope for reform in our judicial arrangements, but we should be wary of constitutional changes that are intended *simply* to remove checks on govt. [THREAD]
2. Referencing the prorogation, @SuellaBraverman calls in this clip for "judicial deference", in which courts "stay out of politics": "they’re not elected, they’re not accountable to the public & it’s for politicians to make political decisions". There are several problems here.
@SuellaBraverman 3. When Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament, he had been elected by no one except his own party activists. The only democratic body to which he was accountable was Parliament, which he was suspending. "Politicians" cannot "make political decisions" if Parlt is not allowed to sit.
@SuellaBraverman 4. The implication of @SuellaBraverman's remarks is that there should be no checks - either parliamentary or judicial - on the ability of a new party leader to suspend Parliament and take possession of the full powers of the Royal Prerogative. That seems a dangerous doctrine.
@SuellaBraverman 5. The argument that judges should "stay out of politics", as they're not elected, assumes that political decisions are made by those who *are* elected: in Parliament. But if Parliament is suspended, that argument falls. It's then for the courts to defend our elected institutions
@SuellaBraverman 6. Every well-functioning constitution needs safeguards, to prevent one branch - usually the Crown or the Executive - from tyrannising over the others. In Britain, that was traditionally Parliament, which appointed, funded and could remove the executive. But that has now changed.
@SuellaBraverman 7. Today, a prime minister can be appointed outside Parliament, by party activists, & can then use the powers of the Royal Prerogative to shut down our elected institutions. So unless we want an unconstrained executive, some other institution must have the power to restore Parlt.
@SuellaBraverman 8. Our constitution already has fewer constraints on the executive than almost any other democracy. The govt usually has a majority in the Commons (on a minority of the vote) & is not constrained by a written const. We shd resist attempts to reduce those constraints further. ENDS
