Well Britain used to be a Democracy, but not anymore…

PM Boris Johnson deciding to suspend Parliament to pass a no-deal Brexit is not only wrong, but it undermines our whole idea of democracy.

If Brexit (The term used for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union) is truly about maintaining democracy and sovereignty within the United Kingdom, no Brexiteer (a person who voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum) should support the move by Boris Johnson, because it directly conflicts with the idea of democracy dangerously. Yes, the referendum should be respected, and if the United Kingdom decides to leave the European Union without a deal, that is okay (legally, not politically, or economically, or socially … ) But our system of government, our law-making ways, are supposed to be the reason for leaving the European Union; therefore, if we are to leave the EU, then it must be done via the proper channels, and by respecting our law-making ways and system of government.

But many Brexiteers, and sadly the British public, see any challenge to the fundamentals of democracy which complicates Brexit as “undemocratic” and “not what we voted for.” They do not realise that in many of the circumstances, the whole idea of leaving the European Union is not being questioned, but instead making sure it is done correctly and safely so at least the country does not suffer as catestrophically as one might expect. Such example was how the British Media portrayed both Gina Miller and the High Court Justices preciding in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] as being “Enemies of the People” as well as “Traitors” to both the United Kingdom and Democracy. The case, which eventually was heard by the Supreme Court, ruled that Parliament (as the Legislature) had to trigger Article 50 TEU, and it could not the Prime Minister or her Cabinet (as the Executive), therefore preserving how democracy operates in the United Kingdom. Therefore, these were not enemies of the people at all, but instead were individuals which wanted to protect the interests of the UK population, and make sure Brexit was completed properly.

With the current constitutional crisis which PM Johnson has added to, it seems that the Miller case is particularly important at enforcing the fact that it is Parliament that resides over Brexit decisions, and not our Prime Minister. Further, we have seen further judicial attempts to stop Boris Johnson in his tracks; not necessarily to stop Brexit, but to make sure that we leave the European Union in a way which coincides with our democratic processes. Recent news suggests however that PM Boris Johnson would in fact ignore either Parliament or the Courts if he is blocked in his attempts to unilaterally start a no-deal Brexit.

When I have had discussions with people over prorogating Parliament, they point out that John Major did the same during 1997. The democratic difference however is in its circumstances and uses between the two PM’s. PM Major prorogued Parliament following the annoucement of a General Election in the time of a political scandal. PM Johnson is attempting to prorogue Parliament to stop it from attempting to block a no-deal Brexit and unilaterally legislate for our country. This is a scary situation for lawyers, both practicing and academic, as they do not know what will happen next in the country. The reason we find this scary in the UK is because we believe in a way of thinking that Parliament is always Sovereign. This goes back to the days of John Locke and his ideology that the legislature is supreme (known as the theory of Parliamentary Supremacy). If Parliament is Supreme, it can legislate that it could have complete control of the situation, and could potentially halt all future general elections, and potentially give all legislative powers to a Prime Minister, therefore legislating to remove democracy. As the situation stands, any new government / parliament can legislate over a previous government,

Parliamentary Supremecy and Sovereignty are fundamental to leaving the European Union anyway. If Parliament was not sovereign while a member of the European Union, we would have been unable to trigger Article 50 or legislate to leave the European Union with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Therefore the UK could not have lost its sovereignty to the European Union. But then again, there is a strong, false belief in a further Lisbon Treaty among Brexiteers which would force the UK to join Schengen and the Euro by 2020…

Brexiteers who voted to leave the EU purely based on wanting the UK to remain sovereign do not understand that the UK’s sovereignty cannot be taken away. This cannot be done in International Law or European Union Law, but cannot be done under our own constitutional beliefs. Because the UK does not have a written or codified constitution does not mean we do not have a constitutional system.

Bibliography / Sources:

James Slack, ‘Enemies of the people: Fury over ‘out of touch’ judges who have ‘declared war on democracy’ by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis’ (Daily Mail, 3rd November 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html Accessed 3rd September 2019

Peter Walker & Jessica Elgot, ‘Boris Johnson’s ultimatum: back me or face 14 October election’ (The Guardian, 2nd September 2019) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/boris-johnson-threatens-to-ignore-mps-on-no-deal-brexit Accessed 3rd September 2019