Admin l Tuesday, September 24, 2019
BRITAIN, U.K – The ego of British Prime Minister, Mr. Boris Johnson came to naught today following ruling by the Supreme Court that he lacked the power to prorogue or suspend the British Parliament.
The court ruled (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The
Prime Minister (Respondent)Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate
General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland).
Boris John had by military fiat suspended the British Parliament in other bulldoze his way for a successful no-deal Brexit come October 31, 2019. The 11 man Supreme Court led by Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales unanimously ruled that Boris Johnson suspended UK Parliament unlawfully.
“Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a
representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies).
“The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons – and indeed to the House of Lords – for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of
governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.
“The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account. The answer is that of course it did. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of a possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on the 31st October.
“Parliament might have decided to go into recess for the party conferences during some of that period but, given the extraordinary situation in which the United Kingdom finds itself, its members might have thought that parliamentary scrutiny of government activity in the run-up to exit
day was more important and declined to do so, or at least they might have curtailed the normal conference season recess because of that. Even if they had agreed to go into recess for the usual three-week period, they would still have been able to perform their function of holding the government to account. Prorogation means that they cannot do that.
” Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional. A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge.
“The people have decided that. But that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the democratically elected representatives of the people, has a right to have a voice in how that change comes about is indisputable. And the House of Commons has already demonstrated by its motions against leaving without an agreement and by the European Union
(Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, that it does not support the Prime Minister on the critical issue for his Government at this time and that it is especially important that he be ready to face the House of Commons”, President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale ruled.
As she puts it, “The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”, adding that the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued – the decision was null and of no effect.
Reacting to the development, Commons Speaker John Bercow confirmed MPs would now return on Wednesday.
