2nd March 2023
Over at Substack, the essay for paying subscribers is on the 1993 case brought by William Rees-Mogg and James Goldsmith against the Maastricht Treaty.
You can read it here.
For the reasons set out in the essay, it is fair to see the case as one of the origins of Brexit.
The essay begins as follows:
The case was described by the party who brought it as “the most important constitutional case for 300 years”.
This was the application for judicial review brought by the life peer William Rees-Mogg in July 1993, where he sought a High Court declaration that the legislation giving effect to the Maastricht Treaty was unlawful. Lord Rees-Mogg wanted the courts to tell parliament that a Bill, which was then about to become an Act of Parliament, was invalid. It was to be a strike at the very principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
His lead barrister for this ambitious claim was a recently appointed QC called David Pannick, and the high costs of the claim was financed by James Goldsmith (a year before he founded the Referendum Party).
The legal claim so concerned the John Major government that, in addition to instructing the then Treasury Devil (the government’s usual barrister for such cases) it also instructed one of the most brilliant barristers of the day (and still, happily, our day), Sydney Kentridge.
The stated grounds for the application also so alarmed the then Speaker of the House of Commons Betty Boothroyd to take it upon herself to warn from the speaker’s chair of the House of Commons “that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Court”.
The timing of the case was significant. When the claim was brought the Bill giving domestic effect to the Maastricht treaty was still before parliament, though it received royal assent before the hearing could take place.
The Maastricht Treaty had been signed in February 1992, but there was a sense that it was not inevitable that it would actually take effect.
The Danes had rejected the treaty by referendum in June 1992, before approving it in a further referendum in May 1993, and the French referendum of September 1992 had approved the treaty with only a narrow 51% majority. Also in September 1992 the United Kingdom’s currency had been ejected from the exchange rate mechanism on “Black Wednesday”. The European Union project was not seen by its opponents as inescapable. Not only was the Maastricht treaty contested, it was seen as capable of defeat.
Domestically the government had had problems getting the Bill through the House of Lords (including defeating Lord Blake’s amendment for a referendum) and had suffered a number of rebellions in the House of Commons.
And when the Bill received royal assent on 20 July 1993 but there was still what then Prime Minister John Major called a “ticking time bomb” of a later vote on the Social Protocol which would mean the treaty could not be regarded as ratified. Major was to win that vote only by making it a vote of confidence.
This was all very exciting at the time, and a great deal of the above – spirited public law claims led by Pannick, judges being brought into political matters, calls for referendums, close commons votes – seems rather familiar at our own time of Brexit. The case is well worth looking back on thirty years later.
And so this is the story of R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p. Rees-Mogg.
*
Those of you kind enough to be paying Substack subscribers can read it here – and if you are not yet a paying Substack subscriber, please consider becoming one. The subscriptions help support my daily law and policy commentary on this blog.
Those of you who are Patreon supporters can read the essay here.
Anyone who donated money on PayPal to this blog in 2022 can have a free one year complimentary Substack subscription – just leave a comment marked “Private” saying when you donated below, with your email address. (It is important that nobody pays twice for my drivel.)
If you are a regular reader of this blog and are currently not able to afford a paying subscription, also leave a comment below marked “Private” saying so, with your email address, and I will consider providing a short-term complimentary subscription.
*
Last week’s essay was on how the courts improvised legal solutions in the hard case of George Blake.
The week before the essay was on the lore of Lady Justice, here.
And the week before that it was on the case of Jane Wenham and the last of the English witch trials.
Other essays include (in chronological order of the subject):
Dr Bonham’s case (1610) – and the question of whether parliament is really sovereign
Taff Vale (1901) – perhaps the most important case in trade union history
Wednesbury (1948) – the origin of the modern principle of legal unreasonableness
Malone (1979) – perhaps the most significant constitutional case of the last 50 years
These essays are on topics to do with legal history and legal lore – and they are in addition to my topical law and policy commentary here every weekday.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.