Today, the Unit published Monitor 86, providing analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Meg Russell and Alan Renwick also serves as the issue’s lead article. It outlines how the government and its opponents are increasingly acting with the general election in mind, and the impact that is having on the UK constitution. It covers a wide range of topics, including the defeat of the government’s Rwanda policy in the Supreme Court, the ensuing legislative battle to overturn that judgment, a furore involving the Speaker, changes to the electoral system ahead of the next general election, the health of the monarchy, a return to power-sharing in Northern Ireland, and challenges to the rule of law in Poland and Israel.

Constitutional politics – just like politics more broadly – is increasingly framed by the UK’s looming general election. That must take place within the next 10 months, but could be called within weeks. Each party is preparing its pitch to voters, and preparatory changes – some of them controversial – have been made to electoral law.

A Conservative priority is to ‘stop the boats’ that carry asylum seekers across the English Channel. The Supreme Court ruled in November that one of the policies through which ministers hope to advance that aim – sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda – was illegal, as asylum seekers there could be returned to home countries where they are in danger. The government responded to this judgment by upgrading its previous memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan government to a treaty and by introducing legislation that, if passed, will declare Rwanda to be a safe country, prevent courts from deciding to the contrary, and empower ministers to ignore injunctions granted by the European Court of Human Rights.

These moves seem motivated by a belief among ministers that seeing flights take off for Rwanda is essential for their party’s prospects at the ballot box. But, in attempting this, they risk placing electoral expediency ahead of the rule of law. The Rwanda bill is criticised for breaching the UK’s obligations under international law and for undermining the separation of powers between parliament and the judiciary. Both of these points are central to the British constitutional tradition.

Continue reading →