UK Supreme Court ruling should lead to ‘consequences,’ says Boris Johnson – By James Randerson (Politico) / Sept 29 2019
The UK prime minister suggested that a US-style system of political appointment for judges might be necessary.
Top judges should be subjected to U.S.-style “accountability” Boris Johnson suggested following the decision by the U.K.’s Supreme Court to quash his decision to suspend parliament.
The U.K.’s highest court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the prime minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was “unlawful” leading to MPs being recalled the following day.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Johnson insisted that he respected the court’s judgment “very humbly and very sincerely.” But he suggested there would be “consequences” following the judges decision to intervene in such a highly political question.
In other developments ahead of the Tory party’s annual conference in Manchester, which gets underway Sunday:
— The Sunday Times reported that the prime minister personally apologized to the queen following the court’s verdict. Prorogation happens at the request of the monarch on advice from the PM.
— Journalist Charlotte Edwardes accused Johnson of touching her and another woman inappropriately under the table during a private lunch at the Spectator magazine when he was editor. She wrote in the Sunday Times that the lunch took place in the late 1990s or early 2000s. “Under the table, I feel Johnson’s hand on my thigh. He gives it a squeeze. His hand is high up my leg and he has enough inner flesh beneath his fingers to make me sit suddenly upright,” wrote Edwardes. Downing Street declined to comment on the allegation.
— Johnson pledged to spend £13 billion building 40 new public hospitals.
In his interview, Johnson expressed his disquiet about the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene on the question of whether proroguing parliament was legal.
“In so doing it seems to me that the justices intruded onto an acutely sensitive political question, at a time of great national controversy … I don’t think that the consequences of that judgment have yet been fully evaluated,” he said.
“It will take a while to be worked through. But I think, if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability.”
“The lessons of America are relevant,” he added, apparently referring to the U.S. system of political appointment of judges and other measures.
In further combative comments, he refused to back down from his use of the phrase “surrender act” to describe legislation passed earlier this month with the help of rebel Tory MPs to force him to request an extension to the Brexit deadline if he fails to reach a deal with the EU.
“I won’t be bullied off use of that term. It seems to me a perfectly humdrum political metaphor. Actually … the ‘abject capitulation act’ might be just as good a term for it, because it would attempt to force the prime minister of the UK to write a letter requesting to stay in the EU, and it would … allow the EU to decide how long we would stay on in the EU,” he said.
“If that isn’t an attempt of the wholesale destruction of a country’s negotiating position, I don’t know what is. So I think my language was really quite moderate.”
