Courts called upon to solve problems caused by a failure of government and politics

Last weekend saw the annual celebration of the defence of the siege of Londonderry in 1689.

James II had been deposed because he and his government exercised arbitrary powers of detention, torture, seizure of property and taxation which was levelled particularly against the Protestant population and churches.

The invitation to William of Orange to the throne was a milestone moment in UK constitutional history. This would see the powers of a king or his government restricted wherein neither the king nor his government could make any new law or amend a law unless authorised by Parliament.

I see that Ben Lowry (UK’s top court hears the Acts of Union has been set aside, News Letter, December 3) was exercised by two decisions of the UK supreme court which previously resulted in knee-jerk reactions by some other editors in Brexit-supporting newspapers. In one case, labelled as 'Enemies of the People' the sitting justices saw personal threats against their safety and security.

I write this because I am tired that courts are relied upon to solve problems which have been foreseeably caused by a failure of politics and government. Mr Lowry explains how the UK government was not explicit when it changed the Acts of Union.

I make clear at this point that I have no qualifications in either law or history and look forward to being corrected.

Brexit had solid arguments both for leaving and staying within the EU and the outcome should have been on balancing those pros and cons. Some propaganda against the EU preyed on our ignorance, including that of complex international trade. It had descended so low as to ridiculously claim ‘EU rules are killing baby polar bears’.

I decided it was time to investigate some facts for myself beyond the words of those who had a vested interest either way.

In the two law cases to which Mr Lowry referred neither was a decision on Brexit. The first case Millar No 1 (2017) asked whether the EU Referendum Act 2015 had authorised the government to repeal UK laws and make new laws. Parliament gave permission to the government to hold an advisory referendum but did not extend its powers.

If we remember back to William III neither the monarch nor government has powers to create new laws or repeal laws unless authorised by Parliament.

In Millar No 2 (2019) the government exercised its lawful right to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament. The government declined to provide the supreme court with a reasonable reason for the excessive five-week suspension.

Lord Sumption, then recently retired, offered his opinion that use of the suspension is lawful but went further to agree with the supreme court, saying that government powers had not been used but instead had been abused. Scottish Legal News quoted Lord Sumption: “What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries – and that’s what happens if you have a power and you abuse it, you find that the system steps in to curtail it.”

If you would like a king or government to make or change any law it wanted without lawful authority from the people through parliament, please first take time to spare a thought for those 10,000 souls who in 1689 in Londonderry gave their lives to help ensure that it should never happen again.

Henry McKeown,

Ballymena