meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
TALKING POLITICS

Supreme Court

TALKING POLITICS

Catherine Carr

News, News & Politics

4.72.5K Ratings

🗓️ 19 September 2019

⏱️ 45 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In the middle of the epic prorogation battle at the Supreme Court, we ask what's at stake: for the government, for Brexit, for the constitution and for democracy. Is this a case of legal precedent, common law practice or higher constitutional principle? Is the UK constitution becoming more European in the act of leaving the EU? And what are the things lawyers on neither side can say? Plus we ask how Jo Swinson's case for revoking article 50 is going and we discuss whether we could really have a 2nd referendum without another general election. A packed episode! With Catherine Barnard, Helen Thompson and Chris Bickerton.


The prorogation case has reached the Supreme Court.

  • Traditionally the courts are reluctant to second guess political decisions. 
  • The high courts of England and Wales ruled that the case wasn’t justiciable. The Scottish court took a different line.
  • This case is really looking under the bonnet of the constitution.


If there is no judicial control, the right to prorogue could be abused—this could trouble the courts. 

  • But according to the UK constitution, the recourse to the abuse of power is supposed to be political rather than legal. 
  • The current executive is a constitutional zombie: it doesn’t have the support of Parliament. 


How does the court see its role? 

  • What Boris did may be outrageous, but it’s not clear what he gained by doing it. He squeezed options but he didn’t wipe them out. 
  • Maybe they just did it to be provocative ahead of a general election. But neither side can say that.


Who are the justices on the Supreme Court? 

  • Most of these people have worked their way up the judicial hierarchy.
  • This is only the second time that all 11 are sitting. They know this case is a big deal.
  • The big question is legitimacy.


Common law has been seen as a central part of the UK’s constitutional history, and common law ultimately is meant to rest on an appeal to experience. 

  • What happens if it is used to assert an abstract principle?


Across the board, politicians are no longer abiding by conventions.

  • If Parliament were functioning properly, it would replace the executive.
  • Parliament chose to legislate against no deal instead of calling for a general election.
  • The Fixed-Term Parliaments act has been a game changer. 


Further Learning: 


And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Hello, my name is David Runseman and this is Talking Politics. The

0:08.8

Prorogation cases reached the Supreme Court. We're right in the middle of it.

0:12.8

It's complicated. It's really important. We need a lawyer. Luckily we have one.

0:18.6

Do you mind that?

0:25.6

Talking Politics is brought to you in partnership with the London Review of Books,

0:29.6

which is celebrating its 40th anniversary for the next few months with an

0:33.2

unimprovable offer. Get a year's subscription and a limited edition LRB

0:38.6

tote bag for just 40 pounds by using the URL lrb.me forward slash birthday.

0:52.6

So Catherine Bernard is with us, professor of EU law, Chris Bickerton,

0:56.8

Alan Thompson. When we had Kenneth here a couple of weeks ago, we had to begin by

1:01.0

getting into the clare's interest because he was party to the case that reached the

1:05.0

Scottish Court. You're not in the law. No, totally non-partisan. Excellent. Did you watch it yesterday?

1:10.6

Yeah, particularly David Panic, who I think gives a master class in how to be a good lawyer

1:16.0

rather than a barricade lawyer. Okay, and I watched the afternoon. So I watched the other guy,

1:20.2

Lord Keen. I know a lot of people have said this, but it is really like watching

1:23.8

Test Match cricket. Not exciting, Ben Stokes Test Match cricket, but like kind of grindy

1:28.0

version where you can do other stuff at the same time and then suddenly something happens

1:31.8

and you think, well, was that it? Did you watch it, Chris? I watched bits of it as well,

1:36.2

I am. I didn't watch any of it. So Catherine, let's just kind of sketch in some of the background

1:42.0

here. So where do you think we are in this? We've had the main case laid out by both sides.

1:47.8

The commentary is making it quite clear that there's the issue whether it's just

1:51.4

dischievous, if that's how you pronounce it. And then if it is, whether the government acted

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Catherine Carr, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Catherine Carr and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.