WE’RE used to it by now – Tories saying one thing in public while the private reality is in stark contrast. We’re not suggesting, of course, that Boris Johnson and his Government are prone to the odd fib. Hells, no. But are we really surprised that in the wake of Tuesday’s unprecedented Brexit judgment, cabinet ministers are plotting a secret overhaul of the courts?
Publicly, ministers are saying they respect the decision of the Supreme Court. Behind the scenes, they are threatening a radical revamp of the system, including politically appointed judges, a written constitution and the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.
The Government is insisting it accepts and respects the judgment of 11 of the most senior judges in the land. But it seems that this is a front. Behind the scenes, there’s widespread fury at Downing Street that is propelling the UK towards a written constitution, the scrapping of the Human Rights Act, and either a US-style Supreme Court with appointed judges, or the abolition of the Supreme Court and a return to the old English system of Law Lords being the final court of appeal. What then, might become, of case such as the one brought by SNP MP Jo Cherry et al? Stymied, no doubt, to use one of our favourite words of the past couple of weeks.
READ MORE: Cherry hailed as future FM after landmark win
According to Buzzfeed, some members of the cabinet are saying they believe it is now inevitable the UK will end up with an American-style Supreme Court as a result of the Supreme Court prorogation judgment.
The comparison between the UK Supreme Court and Iran was also raised in the House of Commons by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Wollaston, who said anyone in the government who undermines the Supreme Court should resign.
Attorney general Geoffrey Cox responded: "What is wrong, is that motives of an improper kind should be imputed to any judge in this country."
READ MORE: Attorney General brands Parliament a 'disgrace'
However, Cox went on to say MPs would have to “reflect” on whether politicians could end up approving judicial appointments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. The judges had the right to make “new law” by ruling against the government yesterday, but this would have “consequences”, he said.
Government sources are reported to be saying that the next step would be a move to politically appointed judges and that the UK is already halfway towards a US-style system.
Other senior Tories are arguing for reform in the opposite direction.
Rather than have a US-style Supreme Court with controversial confirmation hearings that further politicise previously unpolitical areas of public life, some Tory MPs are determined to return the courts to what they see as their proper purpose of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.
This would mean a return to the system of Law Lords being the final court of appeal. The Supreme Court was established in 2009, replacing the Law Lords — a decision that several Tory MPs are arguing was a mistake.
Other ministerial sources said the government should scrap the Human Rights Act and break the link with the European Court of Human Rights, and called for a written constitution.
READ MORE: Majority of Scots want Boris Johnson to resign
Cox signaled the government would consider introducing a written constitution after Brexit: “I do think that as we depart the European Union, there is ground for thinking again about our constitutional arrangements, how they should be ordered, and in doing so I think a widespread public consultation [on a written constitution] would be essential.”
“No doubt over the coming months and years this will be a subject of important concern to this House,” he said.
Such shenanigans and upheaval will not be of concern for the courts of an independent Scotland …
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel