Did the Daily Mail’s Supreme Court ‘Europhile ratings’ mirror how the judges ruled today?

By on

No, of course they didn’t


The Daily Mail ran a piece about how Brexit-y the Supreme Court judges are. Today’s ruling shows either that this rating system was wrong or that judges’ Europhilia didn’t impact their decision today.

In the December piece, the anti-European Union newspaper gave the justices — which it called “11 unaccountable individuals” — a “Europhile rating” out of five.


With one being the most Eurosceptic and five being the most Europhile, four judges scored the maximum ‘I love the EU’ score. Four scored the minimum.

Reflecting on today’s Brexit legal challenge ruling, the rating system — a Supreme Court hit job piece published the week before the Miller hearing — didn’t seem to mirror who voted for what.

One example of the mismatch is Lord Carnwath who, despite scoring five stars and being badged a clear Europhile by the newspaper, dissented in today’s ruling. Like Carnwath, Lord Reed was also called out by the DM for his links to Europe (he scored four out of five stars). He also dissented.

Other more ‘Eurosceptic’ justices went against the Daily Mail grain and sided with lead claimant Gina Miller, who won her case today by a majority of eight to three. Lords Clarke (one star), Sumption (one star), Wilson (one star) and Hodge (two stars) all punted for the majority ruling.

And how is the newspaper feeling about this morning’s ruling?


No surprises there then…

How the judges ruled:


For all the latest news, features, events and jobs, sign up to Legal Cheek’s weekly newsletter here.


Not Amused

If this Supreme Court is going to occupy the constitutional position it appears to now occupy, then is there not a good argument that it should have been created by referendum?


A barrister




No. We are not governed by referendum. We have a representative democracy. And the Supreme Court has done nothing novel by way of this judgment.









What on earth…



Yet we are about to write the country’s suicide note by referendum…. and campaigns based upon blatant lies are given the title of champions for “democracy”… ridiculous



Necessary disclaimer: I voted Remain.

But…in the end this is all irrelevant, other than for legal scholars. (The Crown in) Parliament will agree to the necessary measures. No party big enough to matter will block retreat from the EU. And the nations can’t do so. We’re out. That’s that.

And we all knew this before Lord Neuberger gave the judgment.

Hats off to Gina Miller et al. You have spent God knows what (most of which presumably end up being paid by the taxpayer) on getting some revisions made to constitutional law textbooks. Your name will live on in the list of cases and in the odd footnote.


Officious bystander

If you’re worrying about wasting taxpayers’ money then ask yourself why the government spent so much on appealing the decision (or even defending it in the first place) when the result of the appeal to most commentators was almost inevitable.

Surely the most sensible way to have ensured triggering Article 50 by the end of March would be to have accepted the High Court Ruling and to have got on with the job of putting a bill through with the maximum amount of time for it to be debated properly. Instead, they prefer to leave it right to the last minute and then have the audacity to brand those who wish to see a proper debate in Parliament as undemocratic.



I don’t disagree. But one could equally ask why the challenge was brought in the first place.

On any view this action could not have succeeded in stopping Brexit, and it does seem unlikely that the claimants were motivated by a burning sense of indignity that Parliament hadn’t been given the opportunity to vote on the matter.

And it’s not really the waste of taxpayers’ money that bothers me. It’s the increasing tendency to seek essentially political solutions through the courts that’s troubling.



I know you know the answer to why and it’s down to May’s instransigence, her utter inability to recognised when she’s in fact totally wrong and the impression she gets that she is somehow imbued with some sort of “divine right of Prime Ministers”.

A lot of taxpayer money wasted appealing a case that most people with half a brain knew she had zero chance of winning and which the government lawyers probably advised her was a really bad idea. But no – Theresa knows best and she is great and if there’s one thing being brought up in a quaint home-country vicarage teaches you, coupled with a dismal spell at the Home Office is that you are always right. Nem con – don’t even bother to argue.

Taxpayer money that could have actually gone to the NHS – unlike the imaginary £350m/week on the side of a sodding bus.



I think there’s room for an argument that we’ve only been given the detail about the ultimate plan for Brexit because the government were aware that they were almost certainly going to lose this appeal and have to give Parliament a vote. While I agree the actual judgement is now pretty insignificant since Parliament are obviously not going to vote against triggering A50, the case does seem to have been important overall.


Bob from down the pub (whose vote, depressingly, counts the same as yours)




are youfor real ??????



sorry meant to identify !


Officious bystander

Are YOU for real in even wondering that??



I thought Carnwath’s dissenting judgement most interesting for his observations on this highly charged political process.
I would certainly have voted for the NHS to receive an extra £350M a week, with continued British membership of the Single Market, had these been listed been on the ballot paper. They are the two key points I recall from the leave campaign, eloquently espoused by the current Minister for Foreign Affairs. (And certain domestic ones, too, if one can believe what is reported in the tabloids.)



Former model? Never mind businesswoman, marketing specialist, philanthropist, etc.



If Gina Miller is supposed to be intelligent, surely she would have realised that there was no way she could stop Brexit so why go through the rigmarole of bringing an action that was according to her, not to stop brexit. Was it to get front page headlines . To me it appears just to be attention seeking



It was to ensure that Parliamentary scrutiny was respected and observed -and bloody good on her I say. For having the balls to do it when others (complaisant MPs on both sides of the house included) didn’t and viler (disturbingly louder all the time) elements of the press pack were on standby to administer a mauling (predictably, as ever, they haven’t disappointed on this occasion either !!)..

Royal prerogative powers are a hangover from more (well, theoretically anyway ffs !) despotic times. Cynically trying to call on them to “make the job a bit easier” was a pretty rank play as far as I’m concerned and says a lot about the government (and opposition) we currently have, not to say the so-called “democracy” that the media and the uber-wealthy are trying to fashion to their advantage..



Moreover, respect to the Supreme Court for shrugging their shoulders and doing their jobs as they are supposed to do. Regardless of the tut-tutting from the likes of Not Amused about the fact that they aren’t and haven’t been and Lady Hale’s pearls have not been polished blah blah yadda yadda… Can only surmise that she really must have sucked at public law (and continues to do so)…


Comments are closed.