Alex Christoforou
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the British government and its opponents battling out in the U.K. Supreme Court in a legal case over Brexit that may determine whether Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending Parliament at a crucial time ahead of Britain’s departure from the EU.
Remain and Brexit protesters exchanged shouts outside the court building on London’s Parliament Square, as the government’s opponents argued that Boris Johnson illegally shut down Parliament just five weeks before the country was set to leave the European Union for the “improper purpose” of dodging lawmakers’ scrutiny of his Brexit plans.
Pro-EU MPs accuse Johnson of misleading Queen Elizabeth II, whose formal approval was needed to suspend the legislature.
Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.
Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.
Fight for Britain’s sovereignty enters U.K. Supreme Court by The Duran
The Duran Quick Take: Episode 307. The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the British government and its opponents battling out in the U.K. Supreme Court in a legal case over Brexit that may determine whether Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending Parliament at a crucial time ahead of Britain’s departure from the EU.
Lawyers representing Prime Minister Boris Johnson are arguing that his advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was lawful and that, in any event, the court cannot interfere in political matters. The Supreme Court in London is hearing historic appeals from two separate challenges brought in England and Scotland to the prorogation of Parliament ahead of the Brexit deadline.
Mr Johnson insists his five-week suspension is to allow his Government to set out a new legislative agenda in a Queen’s Speech when MPs return to Parliament on October 14.
But furious Remainers brought legal challenges against the Prime Minister’s decision, saying the Tory leader broke the law by suspending parliament ahead of the Brexit October 31 deadline and the prorogation was designed to make way for a no deal exit.
Sir James Eadie QC, representing Mr Johnson, is arguing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of the length of prorogation.
He said it is not a court matter, but more a matter of “high policy”.
In his opening remarks, he said: “We are dealing with a prerogative power. It’s a prerogative power that has been expressly preserved by Parliament.”
He said: “Even if the prorogation in the present case was designed to advance the Government’s political agenda regarding withdrawal from the European Union rather than preparations for the Queen’s Speech, that is not territory in which a court can enter.”
He said the power was preserved in specific legislation, including the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, before highlighting aspects of case law.
The government’s lawyer argued the issue of prorogation was “squarely” not a matter for courts.
He said: “Decisions about prorogation are squarely within that high policy sphere and within that key rationale for non-justiciability.”
Judget Lord Kerr asked Sir James whether he thought that the act of proroguing parliament had he potential to undermine Parliament.
To which Sir James replied: “By definition prorogation has the effects that it has.
“The bills that were previously before parliament fall parliamentary questions cannot be asked.
“But my submission will be that despite those features this is a well-established constitutional function to be exercised by the executive.
“The question remains whether there are judicial standards against the political judgments… whether there are such standards and whether also it is a matter of constitutional propriety for those controls to be exercised by the courts or Parliament.”
But another judge Lord Wilson hit back telling Sir James it was the job of judges like him to defend parliamentary sovereignty.
Sir James will be followed by submissions from Aidan O’Neill QC for Ms Cherry.
It comes after the first day of the hearing saw Lord Keen QC, who spoke for the Government, claim parliament could have taken action against the prorogation of parliament through primary legislation.
Lord Keen told the 11 supreme court justices, parliament had “the opportunity and the means” to determine when it would be prorogued.]
Lord Keen said: “If and when Parliament does not wish to be prorogued, Parliament controls that process by primary legislation.”
Lord Keen added: “The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts.
“There are of course a number of examples of where Parliament has exercised the right of control by the use of primary legislation.”
Mr Johnson’s lawyer submitted that the courts “must not cross the boundaries and intrude upon the business of Parliament”, and confirmed Mr Johnson will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling if it finds his decision was unlawful.
The court, which is sitting as a panel of 11 justices for only the second time in its 10-year history, must reconcile contradictory judgments issued by the English and Scottish courts.
It comes after the High Court in London rejected the case brought by pro-EU activist Gina Miller – who previously brought a successful legal challenge against the Government over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown – finding that the length of the prorogation was “purely political” and not one for judicial interference.
But, on the same day, Scotland’s highest court ruled that the suspension was unlawful and was an “egregious” attempt to stymie parliament.
On the first day of the hearing on Tuesday, Mrs Miller’s barrister Lord Pannick QC argued that Mr Johnson’s motive for an “exceptionally long” prorogation was to “silence” Parliament, and that his decision was an “unlawful abuse of power”.
Mrs Miller’s challenge is supported by former prime minister Sir John Major, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti and the Scottish and Welsh governments, who are all interveners in the Supreme Court case and will also be heard on Thursday.
On Wednesday, she arrived at the Supreme Court for the second day of the hearing, flanked by two bodyguards.
Speaking ahead of the second day of court today, Mrs Miller’s lawyer said no other prime minister had abused the power to prorogue parliament in this way for 50 years.
He said there was strong evidence that Mr Johnson wanted to silence parliament because he saw it as an obstacle, and said it was “remarkable” the prime minister had not provided a witness statement spelling out his reasons for the prorogation.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
I don’t understand why there should be so much kerfuffle around Brexit. David Cameron assured everyone that the result would be respected. The government spent a vast amount of taxpayers’ money sending out propaganda for the Remain campaign, which I would have thought to be illegal, but despite that the overwhelming vote was to leave. So what is there to argue and discuss over three years later? Who is Gina Miller anyway? Sorry to sound snobbish but she doesn’t look much like a Brit and why should this nonentity be able to waste vast sums of (taxpayers’) money in trying… Read more »
I totally agree. The huffing and puffing is over. The time is now to Brexit. When are the Brits going to understand that go=to get out, which by the way the vast majority voted for? The hard or soft border with Ireland can be worked out later at both partners’ convenience.
Gina Miller is apparently not wasting taxpayer’s money. It is alleged she is being funded by foreign billionaires like George Soros and other oligarchs. People who have no right, if it is true, in interfering in Britain’s affairs.
She is wasting taxpayers’ money. Who do you think is paying for the costs of the Government side?
Do believe Gina Miller is from Peru and nought to do with the UK. Common Purpose Members, are running the show, for the Remoaners, including Common Purpose Member Blair, Mandelson, Cameron, Clegg, Brown and Major, amongst others. Soros is also funding the Remoaners and I forget how much money he has invested in the Remoaner team. Ironic, as he made a £billion, when he bet against the UK staying in the European Exchange Mechanism, back in the 90s, on the day we got thrown out. Over three years ago, back in June 2016 we were asked two simple questions. Leave… Read more »
I think Boris will win this and we will have a no-deal Brexit.
All the signs are that he has absolutely no idea what’s happening or how the EU works or even what the single market is. If he knew, he’d be horrified, and he clearly isn’t at all horrified.
The EU27 now want exactly what he wants. They are united in wanting us to leave. They are sick and tired of us and they appear to be very well prepared. I don’t think we are well prepared at all. It looks like the most awful mess to me.
It would not surprise me, if he gets a deal from the EU, but, still signs up, just like May did, to hand over our Forces, weapons and systems to Brussels, for the EU Defence Forces, whether we are in or out. If that is the case, well goodbye Conservative Party for the next few decades.
Sorry I don’t think I made myself clear. I didn’t mean Boris would be horrified at how evil the EU is, but how complicated it is.
Nigel Farage said something very interesting in the European Parliament this week.
“Speaking from the back of the room, Farage claimed Barnier’s objective had always been ‘keeping us trapped inside’, fearing that the UK ‘breaks out of the single market and we become much wealthier outside the European Union.'”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/brexit-juncker-calls-for-operable-proposals-in-writing-from-uk
He really does think the UK will be much wealthier outside the EU. HOW??? Has he drunk the biotech Kool-Aid? Tony Blair did, Gordon Brown did, David Cameron probably did, and Boris certainly did. Will they find out before or after Brexit?
Owing to the fact that we will not be dictated by the EU, who take everything and give back nought and mess up everything in between. I remember, growing up in England, before we joined the Common Market and we had industry, a sense of humour, manners, respect, obviously, there were bigots, but, nothing like we have today. We actually had proper industry, where the young, would join and learn a decent, skilled apprenticeship. It provided work and skills for the local communties. Then after joining the Common Market, the asset strippers came to town and now we have University… Read more »
Look up the Scottish Land Revenue Group (pro-Brexit Georgists)
If you think the asset strippers come from the EU, you are going to get a very nasty shock when we leave. It’s the asset strippers who want us to leave. There will be chaos, bankruptcies and mispriced assets. Wealthy Tory donors will make a lot of money. That’s the whole point of it.
That’s not the fault of Brexit, though. It’s the fault of vulture politicians. The theft, however, has been going on for decades in the UK. The vast majority of what’s called “capital gains” in the UK represents land prices, NOT buildings.
The government has to win this case
The remainer ‘coup’ including this farcical case and the Benn-Letwin law only stand to confirm their anti-democratic, arrogant and totally self-preserving plans. MPs are representatives of the people – not canvassers to do their ‘best’ for the people. It is highly likely this is all the work of the EU, Soros and Bliar – none of whom are democrats
The people voted to leave the EU three years ago – the only reason we have not left is parliament and the elites desires to overturn the vote
Watch what happens with the Benn-Letwin Law and how it will backfire. Queens Consent, so comes to mind and it will have to go through Parliament, owing to it’s content and how it affects the sovereignty of the UK, at least 3 times. Will they have enough time, between now and 31 October 2019?
Common Purpose Member John Major, how long did he prorogue Parliament, during ‘cash for questions’, just before he lost the election to the another Common Purpose Member, from Scotland, who led the Labour Party and is running the show with his good mate Mandelson, for the Remoaners, Tony ‘Miranda’Blair. In September Parliament is always prorogued, owing to shutting it down, for the party conferences, and then it is opened in October, by the Queen’s speech. So it has only been extended by 4 days, more than normal. Gina Miller, and is she not from Peru, so what is it to… Read more »