قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Supreme Court: Parliament's suspension battle begins on the second day

Supreme Court: Parliament's suspension battle begins on the second day



  Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry

Copyright
Reuters / PA Media

Caption

Activist Gina Miller and SNP MP Joanna Cherry have both instituted proceedings against the permit

The dispute over the legality of Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the parliament will later be returned to the Supreme Court for a second day.

The Prime Minister suspended the parliament for five weeks earlier this month ̵

1; or canceled it in advance – and said he wanted a speech from the Queen to outline his new policy.

Critics claim, however, that Mr. Johnson tried to end parliamentary scrutiny in the run-up to Brexit on October 31.

Two cases for the approval are currently being appealed.

During the first day of Tuesday's hearing, Lord Pannick QC said for businesswoman Gina Miller and other activists against the Prime Minister's move that the suspension had been carried out to silence MEPs before Brexit and was a " unlawful abuse "of power".

But the government's lawyer, Lord Keen QC, said the prime minister was "justified" in acting the way he did and the matter was not a matter for the courts. 19659012] In which two cases has an appeal been filed?

Gina Miller's team appealed against the High Court decision that the agreement was "purely political" and therefore "not a matter" for the judiciary.

The Government has appealed against a ruling by judges at the Edinburgh Court of Appeal saying that Mr. Johnson's move was "unlawful" and aimed at Deputies before the Brexit deadline.

What will happen next?

The court is expected to begin sitting at 10:30 BST.

It begins with two and a half hours of argument by Government Representative Sir James Eadie QC against the appeal of Ms. Miller's team – denying the UK court's ruling.

Subsequently, after lunch, Aidan O & # 39; Neill QC will put forward arguments against the Government's appeal on behalf of the Scottish challenger for two hours Tuesday to overrule Edinburgh's decision.

What happened on the first day?

The bipartisan peer Lord Pannick QC spent the morning arguing against the judgment of the English court on behalf of Ms. Miller.

He said that Mr. Johnson has suspended the parliament to avoid the risk that MPs "defeat or damage" his Brexit plans.

Lord Pannick said he has no quarrel with the right of a prime minister to extend parliament to hold a speech by the queen.

But he said the "extraordinary length" of this suspension was "strong evidence that the Prime Minister's motive was to silence Parliament because he saw Parliament as an obstacle."

To escape parliamentary scrutiny, the basic principles of constitutional law are upside down, "he said.

Media playback is not supported on your device.

Media Signature Prime Minister" abused his powers " Lord Pannick QC told Judges of the Supreme Court.

In the afternoon, Lord Keen QC, Advocate General for Scotland, continued to argue, on behalf of the Government, against the Scottish court's ruling that the ban was "unlawful."

He said earlier parliamentary assemblies – including 1930 and 1948 – were "clearly" hired when governments wanted to "pursue a particular political goal," adding, "They are entitled to."

And he MEPs did not want the parliament to be suspended, they had "reasonable mechanisms" and the ability to prevent this by introducing new laws Say goodbye. This shows that a law to block the Brexit agreement was passed within just two days.

However, Lord Keen also assured the court that if the Prime Minister confirms the Scottish verdict, he would "take all necessary steps" to comply with it – although the peer would not comment on whether Mr. Johnson could later try that Parliament again prorogieren.

Media playback is not supported on your device.

Media Signature Lord Keen QC, Advocate General for Scotland, argued on behalf of the government.

Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, emphasized the milestone would not affect the timing of Brexit.

She said that she and her 10 colleagues would work to address the "serious and difficult legal issues" raised by the case, but would not determine "broader policy issues" related to the Brexit process.


Source link