Court ‘could be reformed’ after intervening in politics, says PM
PRIME Minister Boris Johnson yesterday signalled the country’s highest court could be reformed after its explosive decision to intervene in political issues.
He said the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the suspension of Parliament were being examined.
And he refused to rule out a US-style political appointments system in the future.
He said Supreme Court President Lady Hale “was very clear” that the issue “she thought Parliament should be debating was Brexit”.
He added: “I think that people will want to consider political implications and the constitutional implications because I think what most lawyers would agree is that, actually, this wasn’t an outcome they expected and certainly it wasn’t an outcome that anybody that advised us expected.
“And it’s new. It’s a new thing. It seems to be having a bearing on a very sensitive political question. And so yeah, people will ask all sorts of questions, but for the moment, what we need to do is take account of the ruling, put it into practice.”
Mr Johnson suggested any reforms would be a “long way down the track” but did not rule out considering US-style selection processes for choosing justices.
He said he would both “respect the law” and leave the EU on October 31– but he refused to say how.After being forced back to the Commons, he said the court was wrong to wade into the row over the suspension of Parliament as he addressed MPs.
Mr Johnson told MPs he had “followed the exact same process” as previous premiers when he called a Queen’s Speech – but the judges intervened in the process for the first time. Remainers launched a tirade of abuse at Mr Johnson for questioning the decision.The PM insisted the Government “observes and will observe the law”.
But he said the judgment was “novel” and raised concerns over the court’s involvement at a time of intense political volatility.
He said: “The Supreme Court was asked to intervene in this process for the first time ever and it is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary to say I think the court was wrong.”