Boris Johnson’s first speech in office extolled the virtues of “habeas corpus and the rule of law.” But three years later, the prime minister is accused of trying to break international law twice a week: on the Northern Ireland Protocol and steel tariffs.
The latter led to the resignation of his ethics adviser, Lord Geidt.
It was also the week that Johnson alarmed many of his own party, as well as the legal profession, suggesting that the UK could withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. This was in response to a last-minute court order halting his plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Johnson’s critics say his focus on changing or breaking the rules when it doesn’t suit him has been his playbook throughout his political career, whether it’s changing the standards system, reviewing the judiciary, or extending it. parliament to avoid scrutiny. Nowhere is it clearer than his police fine for violating Covid’s blockade laws that he had enacted, which has earned him the dubious distinction of being the first incumbent Prime Minister in the United Kingdom to have personally violated the law.
“The government has confirmed that it will change the law so that it can ignore the European Court of Justice’s precautionary measures of recycling government action. The independent ethics adviser cannot be replaced. The judicial review law now allows courts to ignore the government’s previous violations of the law on JR. The trend is clear, “said Charlie Falconer, a Labor partner and former secretary of justice.
The government’s “cavalier” approach to law under Johnson appears to be new, said Jill Rutter, a senior member of the Institute for Government and the UK in a Changing Europe.
Politicians facing court rulings, especially European ones, for the benefit of the right-wing press have long been a recurring theme, he said. But he added that there was a feeling among government experts that the Johnson administration had taken it further.
“We always say we’re interested in maintaining a rules-based international order, but I think what’s new is the shameless and blatant proposal around the Northern Ireland protocol and making commitments that we denounce relatively soon after,” Rutter said. . .
Rutter said Johnson seemed to subscribe to “the divine right of the popular will, considering any restriction on his way illegitimate.”
Despite his drop in polls, Johnson seems to still believe himself in tune with the public. “If you think you’re in a Spock-like mind with the British people, then everything else is illegitimate, and I think that’s kind of a post-Brexit Johnson mentality,” he said. “They seem more ashamed of the unhindered executive branch than any other government I’ve seen.”
Johnson’s first clashes with the law came at the beginning of his term as prime minister, when he tried to extend parliament for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis, a move that was declared illegal by the court. Supreme.
With his leadership on the rocks, there is a sense that Johnson may once again increase populist tensions with the law, especially on Europe-related issues, as part of a new “people versus establishment” narrative.
Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative MP and one of the Prime Minister’s biggest critics from his own banks, said the breach of international law in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol was of particular concern.
“We do not violate international law. If we do, we have no right to criticize other countries for violating international law, and that, of course, would include the Russian Federation and anyone else, “he said.” We should sit down and talk to people about In a civilized way … We can’t keep scoring political points in Europe. It’s like the PM is a one-trick pony. We have to move on. “
He said the approach to the European Court of Human Rights and Rwanda’s decision was also a “dog and knee whistle response” and an example of “more blows in Europe” when the court is associated with the Council of Human Rights. ‘Europe, not Europe. Union.
Within the legal community, there has been a broader concern about the Conservative government’s approach to the law, including the failure of the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General to defend judges from pressure and abuse.
A highly critical report by the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and the constitution found earlier this month that ministers had acted inappropriately by questioning the legitimacy of judges and threatening to reform the judiciary. They argued that this had created the impression that recent pro-government Supreme Court decisions could have been a response to political pressure.
Ellie Cumbo, head of public law at the Law Society, said the job of the Lord Chancellor, currently Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, was a “constitutional gray area” when it came to how far he should go in defending power. judicial.
He said that whenever inflammatory language was challenged around judges, immigration decisions or judicial review, the government seemed to take an approach of “increasing these accusations and misleading rhetoric” rather than mitigating them. .
“It’s not clear where it will end up,” he said.