A tyranny of judges

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a vile assault on the democratic order.

Brendan O'Neill

Brendan O'Neill

Topics Brexit Politics UK

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a vile assault on the democratic order. In finding that Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament was unlawful, and that parliament is not prorogued, the 11 justices have made an explicitly political decision in favour of the Remainer elite. They have taken sides. Ignore the utterly unconvincing pleas of the Remainer fanatics who brought this case, all of whom robotically insist that this is not a political decision, just a legal, constitutional one. No one is buying that. This was a decisively political act by 11 unelected judges who have taken sides against the government of the day, and this opens up a new, dark era in British political life.

What we have seen emerge via this judgement is a borderline tyrannical layer in British politics. A layer that stands above everyone and everything, including the government itself. A layer of unrepresentative, unaccountable individuals who have now presumed the authority to strike down actual government decisions. This instantly weakens any future government’s claim to moral and political authority and their basic ability to relate to parliament, to negotiate treaties, and to act on the will of the people. The precedent set today is that any of that might potentially be subject to the higher, apparently wiser judgement of politicised courts. It is an outrage.

It is staggering just how political, how uninhibited, the judgement was. Even Remainer fanatics are shocked by the extent to which the court took their side against the government (and ultimately against the people, whose vote to leave the EU these fanatics are seeking to overthrow). The justices said the prorogation is unlawful and no longer exists and suggested therefore that parliamentarians may reconvene as and when they please. It was an implicit invitation to the Remainer Parliament to continue its frustration of Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans and of Brexit more broadly. The Speaker of the House, the hardcore Remainer John Bercow, wasted no time in responding. Parliamentarians ‘must reconvene without delay’, he said. Bercow, loather of Brexit and usurper of parliamentary custom, has now effectively been put in charge of politics in this country. Good news for the Remainer elite; terrible news for anybody who truly believes in democracy.

Democracy – incredibly, some of the Remainer elitists who supported the Supreme Court case claim this is what they are fighting for. Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who brought the case, and others outside the court – Caroline Lucas, Anna Soubry, Jo Maugham – all insisted that this was a simple, non-political defence of parliamentary sovereignty against an overreaching executive. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

These people despise Brexit. They have devoted themselves to stopping it. They are against enacting the democratic will. In expecting us to believe their legal case wasn’t political, they expose what a low opinion they have of the people of this country. Millions will see this case, and the judgement, and know instantly that it will not do anything whatsoever to defend democracy, parliamentary or otherwise, but rather will enable the Remainer Parliament to continue thwarting democracy and silencing the people’s voice. At least voters now know what they are up against: virtually every institution in the land, including the law itself, all of which are lending their considerable power to the Remainer elite’s anti-democratic, anti-people project.

This judgement is a disaster for law and for politics. It’s bad for law because it will convince many more people that the law has become a political instrument, wielded by the wealthy to achieve openly political ends that they failed to achieve in the public, democratic sphere. And it is bad for politics because it points to the formation of a new politicised but untouchable elite which has power over the entire nation and everyone in it. That should terrify anyone who believes in real democracy. When the Daily Mail accused judges of behaving like enemies of the people, the Remainer elites went into meltdown. Our message to them today is clear: if you don’t want to be called an enemy of the people, stop behaving like one.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: Getty images.

Rod Liddle and Brendan O’Neill in conversation at Podcast Live!

Rod Liddle and Brendan O'Neill
– live in London

Podcast Live

Podcast Live, Friends House, London, NW1 2BJ – 5 October 2019, 2.30pm-3.30pm

To get tickets, click the button below, then scroll down to The Brendan O'Neill Show logo on the Podcast Live page.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are – 14 weeks into Britain’s three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldn’t have done that without your support. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Jerry Owen

27th September 2019 at 5:17 pm

Surely an incoming government or coalition at the next GE can simply reverse the ‘no deal’ diktat ? As I understand it no prior government can impose it’s will on a future government , I know the ‘no deal’ is a parliamentary stitchup , but there must be a way to reverse it. Obviously you would need a government with the will to do it, which isn’t likely at the moment .. but who knows what the future holds for the next government from the masses if Brexit is thwarted, we may give them no option but to concede !

Marvin Jones

30th September 2019 at 6:04 pm

Or pay a heavy price for their betrayal and surrender to the victors and masters in Europe.

Carlo Guli

27th September 2019 at 8:35 am

The idea that some professional people, free of any constraints, can be disciplined enough to cast aside their own opinions and express equanimous judgements is just a myth and proven wrong by this very ruling. We all are flesh and blood after all.

In my view judges work at their best when they sit to interpret the law because in so doing they themselves are constrained by the very law they seek to interpret and by the received wisdom of some precedents as established by their predecessors.

However, they should never be allowed to make new laws.
Making new laws should firmly reside within the parliamentary chambers where new laws are subject to more intense scrutiny and there is a better chance that those laws express the wishes of the general public, not the whims of a few unelected people however learned.

If not we end up with an oligarchy that can make laws and then interpret them at their own convenience.
We cannot afford to leave such a poisonous tool at large in our system.

It is true that this court does not sit in judgement of its own volition.
But when you also have a rich and empowered elite with enough money and time and an alignment of the inclinations of this elite with those of this court, then these two forces will combine to create a despot that can raise his ugly head above parliament and the crown.

This is what we have just witnessed with this ruling.
I gather from several sources that there was no law concerning the allowable length of prorogation.
To me this means the judges created such law now in order to interpret it.

The powers of the Supreme court must be constrained, denying them the power to make new laws.
If we allow this to happen this means that in the course of the history of this country people have fought to control the absolute power of the monarch only to end up accepting the absolute rule of a despotic elite. I for one do not find this remotely acceptable.

Jerry Owen

28th September 2019 at 10:32 am

Why would you want to be a judge if you can’t be jury as well ?

Carlo Guli

30th September 2019 at 9:24 am

Some would, some wouldn’t. For those who wouldn’t we are lucky enough that we cannot have all that we wish for.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.