September 24, 2019
Britain’s Parliament was suspended two weeks ago by the Prime Minister in a special prorogation order, signed by the Queen as head of state. Opponents of a no-deal Brexit say it was unlawful.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament until 14 October was “unlawful”.
The Supreme Court also said the UK Parliament can meet “as soon as possible.”
Britain’s most senior judge, Lady Hale, sitting with 10 other Supreme Court judges, ruled the advice he gave to the Queen was unlawful.
Lady Hale, said: “Parliament, as elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice… the effect on our elected democracy was extreme”.
Never seen a Labour leader do this before. An energised Corbyn takes the stage immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, calling for Johnson to 'consider his position' and for an election (at some unspecified date). 'Johnson out,' the delegates chant in response.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) September 24, 2019
The Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the ruling showed the Prime Minister had acted wrongly and he told delegates at the party’s conference in Brighton that Mr Johnson should “consider his position”.
The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said prorogation was the worst political decision which had ever been made and he called on Mr Johnson to fire his adviser, Dominic Cummings.
The calling of a Queen's Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever. Dominic Cummings must go.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) September 24, 2019
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) September 24, 2019
Dominic Grieve, one of the 21 rebel Tory MPs who defied the Prime Minister, told the BBC the Prime Minister’s position was now in question in light of his unlawful advice to The Queen.
The idea of Parliament meeting tomorrow seems a little strange when the Commons would never sit on the day of a Labour leader’s party conference speech.
— Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) September 24, 2019
Let’s get back to business. Parliament should reopen immediately. We also need a clear statement from Boris Johnson that he will not try any other dodgy tricks to suspend Parliament for a second time.
— Daniel Zeichner (@DanielZeichner) September 24, 2019
Mr Johnson has even been accused of lying to the Queen about the reasons for the suspension of Parliament, something he has strenuously denied.
It’s about time that Gina Miller was forced to disclose who is funding her legal team!
— Julie Ann maughan (@JulieAnnmaugha2) September 17, 2019
The Supreme Court issued rulings on two legal challenges – one by Gina Miller’s team and one by the government, appealing against the ruling of the Court of Sessions in Edinburgh, which ruled last week Mr Johnson had acted “unlawfully”.
Clear, historic and unanimous judgment from the Supreme Court. Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament because he didn’t want us holding him to account. I look forward to the House of Commons returning as soon as possible.
— Hilary Benn (@hilarybennmp) September 24, 2019
On Tuesday, 17 September, Lord Pannick QC argued the prime minister had suspended Parliament to avoid MPs “frustrating or damaging” his plans to push through a no-deal Brexit.
Eadie: there is now primary legislation on a no-deal Brexit. How can the court say how much more time parliament needs? Parliament could have blocked prorogation by legislation if it chose to do so. it didn’t. “Queen’s Consent” is a matter for parliament to decide, not the courts
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) September 18, 2019
But the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen QC, leading the government’s legal team, said the prime minister was “entitled” to suspend Parliament and the judiciary should not overrule the executive.
I've tried to answer some of the questions asked on social media about the Supreme Court process and the question of how the court will apply Scottish and English law in the two appeals. Keep the questions coming, please. #Cherrycase #cherryandthesupremes #Prorogation pic.twitter.com/LrDSfWLgrv
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) September 17, 2019
Mr Johnson announced in August he planned to prorogue Parliament for five weeks between early September and 14 October, in order to pave the way for a Queen’s Speech to outline the government’s legislative plans.
Lord Pannick argued the suspension was simply to “silence” opponents of his Brexit strategy.
Essence of Sir James Eadie’s arguments for govt is there are no judicial & manageable standards against which PM’s advice to HMQ to prorogue can be assessed, & that it is not constitutionally appropriate for the courts to seek to do so, since political resolution, not judicial.
— Schona Jolly QC (@WomaninHavana) September 18, 2019
On Wednesday, 18 September, government lawyer Sir James Eadie QC addressed the question of “justiciability” and said Gina Miller and SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who brought the case in Scotland, could not point to a single law he had broken in suspending Parliament.
Sir James said Parliament had passed legislation governing some aspects of prorogation but none involving the circumstances in which Mr Johnson passed the order.
Today we're starting with Sir James Eadie QC – the government's go-to-man in a tight spot. He's starting this morning on the government's strongest line of attack: Judges don't have the power to rule on the PM's power to prorogue Parliament. pic.twitter.com/2GVpZYfCuG
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) September 18, 2019
This article was posted: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 5:24 am